Some quick thoughts on Abortion in South Dakota

So I'm a little more than slightly confused about some perspectives on the abortion issue. One argument I keep hearing from the pro-abortion side is that if abortion is illegal then women will go back to some primitive, non-medical procedure--coat hangers were even mentioned by one person I talked to. I find that kind of thinking disturbing and also unreasonable. Really it's like saying, "We should give automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets to criminals because if we take away efficient methods of killing then they'll just go back to using blunt objects to murder people with."
Then there's the argument that there's already too many people around and not enough resources so we don't need any new babies. This is another argument that I find rather disgusting and also very unreasonable because really if we're so concerned about our natural resources and the answer is to thin out the population then why not just kill off whoever we want? I mean really, maybe we could just kill all the old people because they're on their way out anyway and new babies have more potential, or maybe just kill off all the poor people, or all the rich people, or all the blacks, or all the whites, or the Jews or Irish or Atheists, or everyone from West Virginia? Seriously, there's better ways to fight the problem of poverty than killing people. Don't get me wrong I think conservation of natural resources is important but it's not as though the United States is lacking in resources and we're going to fix the problem by killing off certain groups of people.
There are even others still who would argue that it is a woman's right to do with her body whatever she wants to, that it is her choice. That might be fine and well but does she have the right to do whatever she wants to her baby's body? And just how far does "choice" extend? A person can choose to take another human persons life but such actions have consequences, they would be arrested and charged with murder. But as for the womans choice, I think her choice extends as far as her right to do what she wants with her own body, meaning that she can choose to have sex at the risk of getting pregnant. Getting pregnant is the result of an action and the "choice" lay in her choosing the action, not the consequences. If her rights included the taking of a human life because it is too physically or emotionally difficult to support (or too inconvenient) then why not take her child's life when it's two yrs old, or eight or ten or seventeen? Maybe she would want to give it a try and then find out it's too difficult when the child is in high school and get rid of it then.
Yesterday I heard someone say that a woman shouldn't have to suffer the trauma and humiliation of having to report a rape to the authorities. Well, I don't think she should have to suffer any trauma or humiliation either and I wish that rape didn't happen at all. It's a horrible thing to happen to anyone and the very reason I have been an overprotective big brother to my little sister for so many years. But don't you think that justice should be dealt upon the rapist and not upon an innocent human being? If a thief broke into your home you wouldn't pick out just any random person to punish for the crime would you? No, you'd go after the criminal, likewise, there's no sense in punishing an innocent human person for a crime that they didn't commit. Not to mention getting a rapist off the streets so that they don't do the same thing to someone else.
Now I know this isn't an easy answer, and it's a very emotional one and I don't think that it should be an easy answer. Rape is a horrible deplorable thing and I wish that it never happened to anyone. I think it would probably be the hardest thing in the world to suffer through and I can't even begin to image, but it is a human life we're talking about and I think that that should count for something, don't you?

If you believe in Evolution, that is, in an unbroken line from molecule to man with no personal beginning then you might not understand what I'm saying. Because if God doesn't exist and people are nothing more than meat with a mind then there's no such thing as morality and right and wrong are dissolved into mere "preference" leaving us with no reason why we shouldn't just kill the weakest, or whomever we want, in order to ensure the survival of the species or so that the dominant members of the species can dominate, or just out of desire. But if you have a Christian view of man, that is, that man has intrinsic value because he is made in the image of the eternal-personal God, then you have a foundation for ethics and a reason for saying that a human person has value no matter how rich or poor the family is that they are born into.