Extremism seems to be the new tool of Satan, around the world and right here in America. I read the headline on Reuter's that South Dakota had banned most abortions and actually thought that things might be looking up, but then you read deeper:

BAN COVERS CASES OF RAPE, INCEST
The law bans abortion in almost all cases, punishing doctors who perform one with five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. It bans abortion even in cases where a woman is pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or if giving birth would damage the health of the mother.
It creates a narrow exemption in cases in which a physician's effort to save a pregnant woman's life results in the accidental death or injury of her fetus.

This is a catastrophe! A fine example of mixing some good with some evil to make the entire concoction an innocuous seeming poison. The killing of innocent babies is really bad, but the taking of woman's virtue is worse, and this law flatly disallows any rectification of that original destruction of innocence. Specifically, rape and incest are among the vilest of crimes, they remove the innocence and virtue of the victim, and though the past cannot be undone, the ability of a woman to abort a pregnancy resulting from those vile crimes, at least gives her a chance to make it so the crime has no physical repercussions to her. The people of South Dakota have taken away even that last bastion of hope for an already severely disparaged woman. I for one, as a husband and father, would utterly refuse to care for a child that was the result of a rape crime where my wife was the victim. What if the psychological defect that allowed the perpetrator to commit the crime is a genetic disorder? What if it magnifies itself in the next generation? It is our responsibility to society to prevent such ilk from entering our society.

Furthermore, if my wife were to die during the birth of a child, that child, and all the others we already have, would undeniably have greatly disadvantaged lives, with no mother and a severely embittered father. Excluding the ability to make a choice between the life of the mother and the life of the stranger (the baby), is a mistake that will only lead to real suffering.

Let me be clear, I am generically opposed to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. However, I believe (and the only religion on the planet to be led by a current Prophet of God agrees with me, see excerpt below) that exceptions must be made in cases of rape, incest, and mortal peril to the mother. I am convinced that the exclusion of these exceptions is just another means that Satan will use to cause as much suffering to the human race as possible.

“Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.

“The woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else’s irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.”

The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine—life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
-Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 13