Kind of applies to rape too though, since the argument boils down to only two points, is it a human life? and does that human life if there supersede the woman's rights? If the answer to either is no then the rape is irrelevant except in her own judgement, no more or less moral than a decision to abort over bad timing or not liking the gender of the child. If the answer to those two was yes, then rape is still irrelevant since the fetus/kid is hardly responsible for their parentage and if it turned out that someone's dad had raped their mom we'd hardly say someone had the right to kill them now.

So I agree that most of the arguments people chuck out are emotion-driven or strawmen but I think you're ignoring that the same would apply for rape, and the only argument differentiating it from other cases would then be that the severe emotional trauma of the rape itself and carrying the fetus was a direct and severe risk to the life of either the mother or child. That strikes me as a real possibility, but obviously not for direct medical reasons and I would tend to think anyone who was in a state of emotional trauma so profound as to be at real health risk is not of sound mind at the time, and thus not able to make decisions.