That's part of the logic (basically overriding the definition of statutory rape to be "not rape" if the underage child enjoyed it)
But there are a bunch of similar decisions here: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
And the common theme is just because the parent is raped, doesn't override the rights of the child.
It's easy to see how that logic would be extended from child support to abortion.
There the alimony decision was based on the rape victim giving consent from the standpoint of the civil laws which also govern parental relationships. That did not matter for criminal law because the victim was underage.
Not that I agree with the court here, but it is completely different from what you described.