Forest vs. the Trees

I heard a commentary this morning on NPR that brings up a larger issue of abortion. Now I don't want to create havoc with this posting, but I'm going to be as clear as I can about the arguments on either side as objectively as I can to make this point. To preface, this morning NPR had a person speak about their views on their pro-life opinion(to be fair, NPR will be airing the pro-choice view tomorrow, so we can see if I'm right). This person spoke fairly eloquently about her concerns and pressed that pro-choicers need to sit down and talk with pro-lifers to realize that they aren't very different. This statement is a hinge to my point and question. Why is it that the non-liberal side of the coin always turns it into an us vs. them argument? It's always black and white. She talked about how her and her friends who were originally considering voting against Bush didn't because of abortion. They felt strongly about the environment, the problems with the war and a miriad of other issues that were strongly counter to the Bush administration, yet they chose Bush still for one issue, abortion. They march this week in Washington, I guess, for one issue, abortion. This is the reason why I consider this a forest vs. the trees argument. It appears to me, and I certainly could be wrong, but the main problem with the conservative viewpoint on most issues, abortion in particular is that it doesn't grasp the scope of the debate, it only cares about the issue on a small viewpoint. I don't mean to say it's an uneducated viewpoint, but let's be frank here for a moment, it's an ignorant way of looking at any issue. Here are several things that the pro-life side of the debate always disregards...
1. The years and years of struggle for reproductive rights of women, the intention being that releasing women of the shackles of mandatory childbirth gives them more power in society, yeah you can say it's just feminist hubub, but how close is the glass ceiling now as opposed to a few years ago? Any of you ladies take a glance up and you might get a sinking feeling.
2. Rape, incest, abuse, and accidental pregnancy of uneducated minors. I'm trying to keep this short, so I'm throwing a lot together. I should also add to this category the mother's health. Most pro-life proposed legislation doesn't consider these issues because again they look at the small scale examples, not the broad truth of the issue.
3. The law does not and will never define the actions of a people. The law is designed to keep people working well with one another to promote a healthy society. Just as homosexuals won't all just turn straight if you were to outlaw sodomy(see Texas), people who want an abortion or are in a situation where they don't feel they have another choice will seek out someone to make that happen. Both the person and woman will be criminally libel, but on the street, it'll be more back alley abortions and more young females with accidental sterilization, reproductive problems of other kinds and death.
There is much more to consider here from my point of view. Population problems globally for instance, but the bottom line is that no one is trying to be pro-abortion. I just think pro-choicers are more realistic in trying to be pro-woman. Which I think is a much better position for the law. I mention that it's pro-life and not pro-abortion for another reason as well. To further the point that the conservative side only sees black and white. If you believe abortions should be legal, then you must think abortions should be normal. Well that's not the same things. Just like saying if you believe gays should marry then you're saying that all people should be gay and accepting of a homosexual lifestyle. That's not the case at all. Prohibition proved that removing things that even a smaller portion of the population wants will not prevent those people from obtaining it. And the consequences of the increase in black market possibilities makes for more crime and more disconnect from lawless society.
The issue of stem cell research comes into this debate as well, and for no real reason in my opinion. Somehow the conservatives in this country have fooled a large number of the population to believe that the only way to get stem cells is with abortion. Well first off, few talk about the thousands of stem cells available in the imbilical cord of every birth. This usually gets disposed of. The other huge chunk of the debate on stem cell research is the overwhelming amount of data that's been gained from the minimal research we've already done. The answers to many very life threatening diseases can be found in this research, but since it may be linked to the death of an infant that wouldn't survive well anyway makes it wrong.
The end all be all point on the conservative side is the viewpoint that abortion kills a person and that's against religion because all life is sacred. Well my answer to that has two parts, nature and actuality. In nature, we know that many creatures are designed with reproductive systems that allow for several possibly zygotes to be formed into living beings. Many of these zygotes or eggs or larvae or tadpoles or whatever form they may take are killed before they're given the chance to do anything in the way of living. This is normal in nature and accepted as a way to keep the strong of the species alive. Ah but humans only have one child(most of the time) at a time. So we should compare it to an animal of the same ilk. How many calfs die during childbirth? Many. How many infant humans die in the process of childbirth? Many. Why? Poor conditions at birth. The whole world doesn't have the medical facilities we take for granted. Why does the rest of the world matter? Health. The second part of my answer concerns actuality. One of the points at the end of the NPR segment was that the woman asked several of her friends if they were against abortion but for the death penalty and many raised their hands. If you don't see the problem with this, then I can't speak with you because you are using double standards to preach you position. Death is death if it's a condemned man or a new life. According the the bible(given the changes in religious tactic due to the teachings of Jesus Christ as documented by the gospels in the New Testement written after Christ's death), the death penalty is wrong. According to the Pope, the death penalty is wrong. I can't believe that someone would be such a "cafeteria-style" christian to take abortion as wrong because of religion, but the death penalty, well we need that to kill off those heathen terrorists that believe in some other weird god that thinks his people should fight anyone that doesn't believe what they do. Yeah, makes lots of sense to me. So I pose the question to you. Am I right? Do conservatives in the US narrow issues without considering their broad consequences? Am I wrong? Is saving this issue today more important than all of the other problems we face as a nation? Am I right that being pro death penalty negates the pro-life argument that all life is sacred? Or am I wrong because the death penalty is required to have an ultimate punishment for the courts to use to help prevent heavily violent crime? Let me know your thoughts. It could just be more media babbling, but it is a possiblity that the Supreme Court will change enough in the next four years to change the current law.