I think you will find that the notion of compromise is made impossible by virtue of the definitions and language that people are using.
But first, full disclosure -- I don't like the notion of abortion, and especially later in the pregnancy. But I do not permit my likes and dislikes to make decisions for anyone else. I would dearly love more education of young people about sexual matters, but even with that, I know that the temptations are just too strong, and designed by nature to encourage rather than discourage sexual activity .-- and that therefore unwanted pregnancies are still going to occur.
Now, as to the language and definitions use that make compromise impossible. First, is "baby." That's what pro-lifers mean from the moment of fertilization on, and when you make that your definition, then abortion is always about killing babies -- which is of course wrong. For others, until a foetus is viable outside of the womb, it cannot be considered a "baby." It is a foetus.
My own position is this: so long as viability is not possible, then there is only one true "person" absolutely involved, and that is the woman. (She may be married, but that doesn't make her a slave.) After viability -- unless there is a danger to either mother or baby by allowing the pregnancy to come to term -- I really think the law may have something to say.
In the case of rape, or young children, there's no question of forcing the woman or child to carry and bear and suffer from the result of a crime.
