There are instances (as you see from above) where the taking of a human life is morally justifable. When a woman is inpregnated by forcible rape, the woman is just as much an "innocent victim" as the child. And given the extreme emotional damage done to a woman forced to carry a baby who was created through an act of violent violation (and the possible health consequences) she has, IMO, as much right to take that life to defend her own health and well-being as a homeowner has in killing an intruder into his own home. I also have no problem adding inpregnation as an aggravating factor in a rape and thereby moving it to a capital crime.
So, your whiny emotional excuse is that the physical and psycological damage done by a helpless unborn child to a raped woman is equivalent to a person who is willingly trying to kill you? Oh, and no, killing a person in self-defense or defense of your country is not murder. By trying to end your life or the lives of citizens of the country you are defending, that person has waived their right to life. You are simply assisting them.
If I understand correctly, you seem to be equating an innocent child in the womb with a housebreaker or an enemy soldier, as though that child was an active participant and therefore deserving of capital punishment.
That's like responding to a crime by shooting an innocent bystander in addition to the criminal.
What about the extreme emotional damage done to a woman who aborts her baby?
You want to add that to the mix by virtually forcing her to have an abortion by convincing her that that is the only solution to her *problem*?
I also have no problem adding inpregnation as an aggravating factor in a rape and thereby moving it to a capital crime.
In the case of actual rape, kill the bastard who raped her, not the baby.