Maybe if I accepted the conceptual parallel between abortion (which is a decision based on individual context and situation of the woman) and genocide (which is premeditated mass murder with the goal to wipe out an entire group because of a particular ideology), then maybe I would feel more turmoil about it. But I don't remotely accept them as equivalent.
I just think the rights of the woman who has to physically create, bear, and then potentially support and rear the potential person take precedence over those of a fetus. And in the titular example, the killing of an in utero person is in my opinion dramatically less evil than allowing a child molester to run loose and create suffering among people that already exist.
I recognize a lot of people struggle with this, and I can kind of see why, but I don't really 'feel' why. I also don't pretend to have a particularly coherent moral code that drives my position. I think most people who think they live by consistent moral codes are fooling themselves.
However, I freely admit I'm somewhat of an outlier in that I tend to approach 'value' of humanity with a biologist's eye first. Objectively, on a world teeming with people who are by their very existence creating suffering for and destroying countless other species, not to mention destroying the systems that have sustained their own species' survival, there is a cold blooded argument to made that no individual human life should be valued above, e.g., that of any individual of a highly endangered species. And no potential human life that isn't already in existence should have any value at all compared with the people already in existence, particularly given the suffering of many existing humans due to resource shortages.
In practice, of course, I am not that cold blooded. I assume my instinct would be to save a baby that was lying in the road about to be hit by a car before I'd save a baby [insert random severely endangered species], but that's because of instinctive emotional hard wiring, rather than any particular consistent moral code.
All of these moral conundrums exist on scales of gray in my opinion.
Do you 'all abortion is murder' types also reject the death penalty? Most I've talked to support the death penalty, which seems strange to me.
Can the abortion-is-murder people honestly say they value the life a already-existing, starving child of a different nationality, race, AND religion (e.g., black Muslim kid in some African country) as much as the life of starving kid of their own race and religion who lives next door to them? If they can, they are vanishingly rare. Or lying to themselves. We're wired to value our own 'tribe' more than other tribes. And our own 'group' of 100 or so close associates more than other groups within our broader tribe. And our own friends and/or family more than other members of our group.
I was a preemie, and probably should not have survived. Personally, I'm glad I did survive of course; we all have an intrinsic desire to live. However, I don't think I have any particular objective intrinsic 'value' just because I'm human.
Anyway, these moral discussions are interesting, if not very consistent or logical.