You are so right Skooz, but it is the result of unintended consequences with one side of the debate demanding a 100% ban on abortion. The "all or nothing" approach has given us nothing.
As you state, rape or incest being such an infinitesimal percentage of all abortions a little ground could have been given to win a greater goal.
In my ideal world there would be no abortions but also there would be no need for abortions. My ideal world does not exist so I would opt for banning the 99% and fight to eliminate the crimes that generate the rest.
Would you argue that certain types of gang or spousal killing are the result of our "all or nothing" approach to treating murder as a crime?
Given that there were states had liberal abortion laws well before the Roe decision and 18 more (including my home state of NY) voted to substantially liberalize their existing laws just before the decision, I have a hard time understanding your logic.
I think what we are seeing is a very intended consequence of one side of the debate wanting absolute, 100%, constitutionally guaranteed, state mandated, tax payer funded, make-it-a-hate-crime-for-a-church-to-decry right to a guilt-free - nay, praiseworthy - abortion for no other reason than I Feel Like It.