The lesser evil is still evil.
Well we really only have two options here since the baby already exists (again, going logically along with the premise of "the fetus is human and has human rights").
We can abort (which would be murder), or we can face the negative consequences (9 months of pregnancy, putting the kid up for adoption or raising it, etc).
I dunno about you, but I'd go with the latter.
'Course it's completely different with the opposite premise (fetus is not human). Then there's no murder, no obligation, none of that.
Yeah... you can prevent death and still be incredibly cruel and, indeed, outright malicious. The lesser evil is still evil. I'd be willing to trade cruel and malicious for cruel jackasses, though, sure.
One problem: Even if they're so hard against abortion because they think it's murder, they think it's murder for purely religious reasons, and purely religious reasoning is not really something that is supposed to be involved in the United States government/law/legal system.
Err... what?
One thing I've always noticed and been bemused by is the fact religious folk have a
better case for the unborn child not having rights, since they can claim the soul isn't in there yet. Non religious arguments don't have an easy catch-all like that, since they have to debate "what makes people human" and all that junk to determine if the child is or isn't.
I'm sorry, but claiming all arguments for unborn children having rights to be based in religion is utter bullshit.