I have yet to hear a single practical idea that rectifies the problems that come with abortion. In fact, I have presented idea's for it that simply wouldn't work. Unfortunately current methods of birth control are not 100% effective, and we simply don't have the resources to help parents who otherwise couldn't support a family, but if we did have the means to help these families as well as a 100% effective birth control would anyone in the pro choice crowd reconsider the right to that choice? If you don't like hypotheticals this isn't the thread for you.
Maybe a few would, but most would not. I would not, and here's why...
While there definitely are instances of failed birth control and rape pregnancies, the majority of abortions do not result from either of those. While many pregnancies are terminated by teens or women in impoverished or otherwise not really able to raise a child, many also are neither of those situations. Rather, it is as simple as the woman does not want to be pregnant, does not want to go thru labor and does not want to have a child. There is no even "theoretical" method for a pregnant woman to not be pregnant, not go thru labor or C-Section surgery and not have the child - except by an abortion.
I think nearly all pro-choicers would be agreeable to the theoretical of an artificial womb being created from which if the ZEF could be removed and put into that IF the bio-father or other responsible adult will then accept total legal obligation to that incubated ZEF/fetus/unborn child (pick your word choice.)
Would THAT theoretical medical advance solution be acceptable to you? Remove the unwanted ZEF to incubate artificially and then goes to the bio-father or "government" to raise?
I would ONLY agree to that if some responsible adult or biofather committed legally to raising the child - as I totally oppose "dumping" children to being parentless. But I suspect many or most pro-choicers would be agreeable to that theoretical.
The reason I am untroubled by an unqualified "no" to your theoretical is because I do not thiAvonk is anything wrong, evil, immoral or otherwise "bad" about abortion. Unwanted pregnancies also likely often indicate unsafe sex (STDs potential) and may otherwise indicate dangerous or unwise activities, for which I think there need be education, parental involvement etc. But as for abortions themselves, I see nothing wrong with them in the sense of terminating a pregnancy.
The reality is that there will always be females and males that engage in unsafe (STDs) and no contraceptive sex. Ideally, people are educated away from this and in ways that work, but if not and if there is an unwanted pregnancy, I see NOTHING wrong or undesirable in terminating the pregnancy.
While not ALL issues come down to "it's an unborn baby with full human rights for which society has a duty to stop murder" VS "no it's not and it's up to the woman as it's her body," many such as what your OP raises does.
TRUE pro-life can not give up "it's killing a baby." TRUE pro-choice can not give up "It's her body, her risks and therefore her decision." The is no real "compromise" when there are absolute diametric opposites.
What "Pro-choicers" USUALLY compromise on is setting a limit on when abortion should be allowed - usually at the point of "independent viability" of the fetus. What "Pro-life" USUALLY compromises on is not disapproving of MAPs (morning after pills), thought those can rarely act as an aborficide. Otherwise, there is little room for further compromise.