Sorry, but that doesn't fly. If you have an unwanted home invader, it's not the woman's fault for not ejecting him forcibly. A request to leave should be sufficient. If he doesn't leave, the squatter is a trespasser, and in fact violating the woman bodily. As soon as he is norn, he should be put on trial and sentenced.
Patently absurd.
My point is, that in the instance of all but non-consensual sex, she invited the 'invader' in, with predictable results.
That a baby develops out of that natural progression of events does not make the baby an invader, but as natural a consequence of inviting that presence as footprints on the carpet. If she doesn't want that consequence, then measures should be taken to prevent it--either way.
At that point, though, once the baby has been created, the one life everyone is talking about ending for the 'crime' of existing is the one who had NOTHING to say about its existence, a circumstance brought about by two other people.
So the only one here who can be incontrovertibly determined to be 100% innocent is the one who gets capital punishment, something we don't even give axe murderers in most states, while those who imposed the circumstance on the innocent (to be murdered) victim skate.
Talk about stuff that won't fly....
In the meantime, there are plenty of people who would willingly embrace that baby and the responsibilities for its care and nurturing who languish in the wings while the sentence is carried out.