You say this like unmolested is a common or coherent term in moral philosophy. What is the difference in the consequences between ending the potential before vs after fertilization? If you prefer to articulate it in terms of virtue ethics or deontological reasoning, that’s fine, but don’t just tell me the obvious empirical difference between two objects and pretend you’ve made a point about their value.

Also this has nothing to do with politics. In English “potential” has nothing to do with the level of molestation required to achieve said potential. You wouldn’t say a person can only have potential in something if they could achieve it without having to practice. Nor would you say that a business venture lacks potential because it requires adaptability.