Homicide. Some homicides (e.g. self-defense) are justifiable.
Since I don't believe that 'life begins at conception' (an aside, in case anyone asks - the primary reason I don't believe this is that bazillions of 'conceived' embryos never implant and become full blown pregnancies, and I have a hard time believing that all of those conceptions that we never even knew about are dead persons invested with souls)
Do we have to "know" people in order for there to be souls? What a strange criteria. If God wishes to ensoul being who live for only a short time, what concern is it of ours?
Your position is not consistent. Why choose implantation? Many babies are lost through miscarriage after implantation. Often before the mother even realizes she is pregnant. Do you also find it hard to believe that they are "dead persons" with souls? No one ever "knows" them.
I can't accept the 'murder' rationale for all abortions. If I did, however, I simply cannot see how one can argue for 'exceptions' based upon the manner of conception.
One can't argue that in a consistent position. "Rape and incest" is an excuse, a political dodge, a claim of difficult circumstances to test a position.
The only morally and logically defensible exception is the one to save the life (not "lifestyle") or the mother. Self-defense is a justification for homicide.
SD
In fact, I should've been more clear. The vast majority of conceived embryos never make it that far.
And I don't depend on 'knowing' to determine whether a collection of cells constitutes 'life'.
However, I do not believe that my God chooses to end the vast majority of 'lives' before they ever even have a chance to become a life.
"Life begins at conception" is merely a construct. There is no scientific support for such an argument, unless you believe that the vast majority of 'human life' lasts for a few hours or a couple of days. I don't. There is no basis for that construct in the text of the Bible, and the punishment decreed for injuring a baby in utero would tend to indicate the opposite.
But that is my view. It is obviously not yours.
"Self-defense" does not apply in a situation where another's inadvertent actions threaten harm to you, but where there is no intent to hurt you. For example, if an idiot is backing his truck toward you and simply doesn't see you, you do not have a legal right to blow him away. I don't think there is any scenario in which the legal doctrine of 'self defense' could be applied to a medical risk caused by an in utero baby. That, unfortunately, is simply a choice. One that must sometimes be made, but a choice nonetheless. Not a 'legal justification' for homicide.