You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.
You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights.
(1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality.
(2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself.
(Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)