Sure, if you believe that removal of mental anguish is a justification of murder. But that could lead to some pretty bad vigilante justice / revenge justifications if you're going to adopt that logic train. The unwilling participant rationale still exists, of course, but I don't see how that counters the fact that necessity does not justify murder, since the basis of that wasn't someone who willingly decided to participate in the events that led them to "need" to murder someone.
Inks, most pro-choice activists believe that even if the fetus was a person, the mother should still be allowed to abort, because of the fact that she should not be forced to have her body appropriated for the pregnancy, to keep the fetus alive, against her will. This argument is made all the time in abortion debates. You may think that's a terrible opinion to hold, but it's out there, and not logically inconsistent.
From there, it's really no big leap to take the somewhat milder "pro-life with exceptions" version of the argument, which is that if the woman willingly engaged in behavior (that is, had consensual sex) that led to the conception of the fetus, then she has an obligation not to kill it during the prenancy. But if she was raped, then she never signed on for creating a new life, or keeping it alive for nine months, so she should then not be forced to use her body to keep it alive.
Again, you may think that those positions have troubling consequences. But I don't see them as logically inconsistent.
