Abortion: A compromise?

No news link. It just dawned on me, as I was sitting under the rolling clouds watching my boy practice football, that the main bone of contention for those who advocate for the right to choose abortion is the ever famous rape and incest scenario. Added to that is the case in which the life of the mother can only be saved by abortion. Okay. Let's do this. For now, and understanding that there is still much to discuss when it comes to abortion, not the least of which is how we approach the somewhat nebulous definitions of human life, could we do one thing. When I worked for an insurance company, there was one simple rule: Everything - Every Thing - was based on medical necessity (well not really, abortion was the one glaring exception).

But that's the point. Since the entire discussion for maintaining our current approach to abortion rests on saving those women whose lives and mental health depend upon aborting their unborn children, can't we just ask that the doctors who perform the abortion sign off that it was, in fact, based on medical necessity. Restrict all abortions to that criteria, and then insist that the doctors performing the abortions signify by oath that it was only done because it was medically necessary. Fair enough? Since no matter how much pro-life advocates try to focus on the overwhelming majority of abortions that are done purely for reasons outside of the physically or mentally necessary due to rape/incest, couldn't we at least insist the records show that abortions being done are only those most needed? After all, certainly we aren't a society willing to play so fast and loose with the very foundational definition of human life simply to have better sex lives or faster career options...are we? So that seems like a fair call to me. Now let's kick it around.