I like your First "easy question" better than your "new and improved" Second question! And, I truly thought that my answer was very honest and straightforward. But, I will try to answer your new question and I will try to be as honest and straightforward as I can.
Even if ALL abortions were banned, period, I would not feel disgusted or miserable or feel like my life has been disrupted. I truly, sincerely believe that women who are determined to end their pregnancies would STILL find a way to end their pregnancies. I think that, unlike decades ago, illegal abortions would probably not be as "dangerous" or "harmful" to most women as they once were. I think that "Pro-Choice" women, family members, friends, doctors, nurses, and others would be more willing today, than they were in past decades, to secretly "help" a woman who is determined to end her pregnancy, even though it would be illegal for them to do so.
Now, if abortions were legal for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", then I think it would be even EASIER for a woman to have a "safe" abortion even if her situation did not fall into one of those categories. Some Pro-Lifers oppose these or any "exceptions" because they believe it would be a big "loophole", and that women would "use" these reasons to get an abortion when, in fact, they wanted the abortion for a different reason. I certainly don't blame Pro-Lifers for thinking of these "exceptions" as "loopholes". I'm sure that would often be the case. A movie starring Sissy Spacek, based on a true story that took place in the 1960s ("A Private Matter"), implies that doctors working in hospitals often performed abortions "in secret" and used the very few "loopholes" available back then to "get away with it" if found out. Anyway, I did not intend for this post to be so long! Sooooo, to answer your new question:
If all 50 states banned abortions, but made exceptions for "the life of the mother, the health of the mother, rape, incest, fetal deformity/disease, and other health related issues", I would not only NOT have a problem with that, I'm sure that I would no longer "debate the issue in favor of abortion being legal for any reason". I would be relieved to know that in no state were legislators and judges working hard to outlaw abortions for women who are raped or for women who have been told by their doctors that their health is in danger if they continue a pregnancy. Yes, I know that some "Pro-Choicers" would not "settle" for such a law, and that some "Pro-Lifers" would never be happy with such a law. But, I would hope that the vast majority of Americans would "accept" such a law, and I would hope that much, if not most, of the divisiveness over the abortion issue in this country would end. Wouldn't that be great?
Fair Enough. I have no desire to debate the rape issue with a person who's admently pro-choice. Its a waste of time. Perhaps you're diffrent.
As it relates to rape and incest I don't see what crime the unborn comitted so aborting them in those situations is uneccessary. The last I check, about 90,000 women are raped each year and about 600 women die a year from complications of pregnancy. So, if we started to see more women getting prengant from rape than who are being reported for rape that would be a problem.
However, if the pro-choicers were to agree to restrict abortion to the reasons I mentioned above then I would be willing to forgo the debate. I wouldn't bother with it anymore and leave any further discussion to the next generation. If someone where to ask me if I would sacrafice the lives of 10,000 people to save the lives of 110,000 people I would answer yes. If somone then accused me of hyprocacy I would simply say, "I just savied 100,000 lives... how many have you saved? If saving the lives of 100,000 peole makes me a hypocrit then I'm proud to be one." If abortion were restricted in such a fashion, I believe it would save 1 million lives a year.
Now that I think about it, with abortion, it wouldn't even be a sacrafice. 110,000 people are going to die and I have an opportunity to keep 100,000 of them from dying... so yeah, I'd take that deal.
Your reponse gives me hope that some day, one day, the bitter and devisive debate on the issue of abortion will, if not end entirely, at least become Much Less bitter and devisive. If you (and other Pro-Lifers) are open to compromise, and if I (and other Pro-Choicers) are open to compromise, I think that is very encouraging, a Very Good Thing, and Very Good News! Now, yes, there will always be some Pro-Choicers and some Pro-Lifers who will always say, "There can be No Compromise on the issue of abortion!" I would say to them, "Hello! Look at where your 'No Compromise' position has gotten us after almost 40 years!" Sure, I understand that there ARE some issues and causes in which one should never "compromise", but it seems to me that to NOT be willing to compromise somewhat on the issue of abortion means NO ONE will ever be satisfied ANYWAY. And, I agree with you that it is NOT "hypocrisy" to say "My 'compromise' saved many, many lives! How many lives did your 'No Compromise' save?" And, as for "leaving any further discussion to the next generation", wouldn't it be great if our grandchildren and great-grandchildren lived in a country in which this issue was "important", but NOT bitter and divisive, thanks to the parents and grandparents who were willing to compromise! And, who knows, maybe one day soon Medicine, Science, and Technology will make preventing pregnancy much, much easier and foolproof. When there are NO unwanted pregnancies, there are (almost) NO abortions (except in the tragic cases in which a "wanted" pregnancy may need to be terminated for tragic reasons). I certainly would like to think and hope that in the near future the abortion issue will be a very minor issue BECAUSE unwanted pregnancies will be extremely rare.
Anyway, my post, as usual, is longer than I had planned it to be. I guess I mainly wanted to say, "Yeah, I'd take that deal", too. It may seem, from reading the posts on these boards, that few would "join us" in that deal, but, outside these boards, I bet many people on both sides of the issue would at least give "that deal" some serious thought!