>How would such a compromise look like?

Stop legal abortions at the age of viability as arrived at through scientific consensus.

>I personally feel that the conservative stance on abortion is cruel...

In some cases, it is. I'm not agreeing with all the anti-abortion arguments. I have also talked with "progressive" family members that have a cold/cruel absolutist view of it. In their mind, 8 months was fair game, because choice. When it comes to abortion, the assholery cuts both ways.

> Stop legal abortions at the age of viability as arrived at through scientific consensus.

The age of viability could be arbitrarily early as technology progresses so I don't see how that is a good criterion.

Instead I would argue for several different criteria. One is consciousness. This probably only occurs half a year after the child is born. Another one would be the ability to feel pain.

Regardless of all other concerns, as a practical matter, I would argue that once a baby has some sort of independent existence from it's parents (once it came out as a matter of fact, no matter when) then it ought to be protected.

> In their mind, 8 months was fair game, because choice.

Is this really a practical problem? Abortions after 3 months (sometimes after 6 months) are somewhat controversial, but also very rare. For example, the numbers in Germany seem to be that 97% of abortions occur early.

The late abortions are almost always related to very serious disabilities and this is a completely different topic. For those rare cases I would again argue that sometimes good arguments can be made for the abortion. It is not a clear cut case.

Related: "I wager that the fetus experiences nothing in utero; that it feels the way we do when we are in a deep, dreamless sleep." https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-conscio...

I think most pro-life people are motivated by their empathy and need to defend the weak. Still they are very authoritarian on the issue and just can't admit the other side's moral views are valid. Abortion being allowed lets both groups live according to their moral views while the ban enforces pro-life view on pro-choice people.

Abortion ban as political issue and abortion as moral issue are a different matter. The latter is an interesting thing to debate in light of various ethical principles. The former should be straightforward (if it wasn't for desire to impose your morality on others and control their lives). Once you admit both sides have a point the only option left is being pro-choice. Pro-life argument is based on "I am right, you are wrong and I am willing to legislate against you even though your decisions have 0 influence on my life". It's very similar to legislating against gay sex in this respect (no influence on you but as you find it disgusting you are willing to legislate against it).

Abortion is the biggest issue I disagree with conservatives and even though I lean more right as I am getting older and as the left (in my view) is collectively losing their mind this one I really can't get over.

I don't think you have understood the pro-life stance, then. One of the main functions of sex is to produce children, and it is well-known that sex has a decent likelihood of producing children. So if you choose have sex, you are also choosing to accept the responsibility to care for any children that come.

This is kind of tied in with the Judaeo-Christian worldview, which says that sex is only designed to be done within the context of an unbreakable covenant (marriage), because it bonds you together in a deep way. Sex isn't just an act, which is why divorce is so traumatic. Children are supposed to be conceived out of an act of love into a safe, loving environment. (Everyone is aware that this is often not the reality, but this is what the design is.)

All that is hard to explain, though, so it's easier for people say "it's morally wrong because God says so," which really isn't a helpful or even appropriate way of interacting with non-Christians. An appeal to authority doesn't work if the other person doesn't accept the authority...

Obviously, you are free to reject this view. You can even reject the moral part, but I think that fundamentally the conservative stance is taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions. We take a dim view of people who get drunk, drive, and kill someone, because driving carries a responsibility. So why are we okay with people who have sex and then kill someone to get out of their responsibility?

Hopefully this makes the pro-life position more understandable, even if you don't agree.

> How would such a compromise look like?

No-questions-asked contraception.

edit: A more radical idea would be to ban abortions but allow the parents to give up the baby at birth as a ward of the state. The expenses would be covered by a new tax.

This doesn't work because there are medical reasons to have an abortion outside of unwanted pregnancy.

We would solve all our problems at once if only we could come up with a process that would make parenthood opt-in, rather than opt-out... Like a reversible vasectomy.

Contraception is not fully reliable (there are 6-12 pregnancies per 100 women per year despite contraception).

> Contraception is not fully reliable

No contraception is even less reliable.