Question about Nikon motorless bodies and Nikon AF/Non-AF lenses

Okay, so basically my dilemma is as follows:

I am looking to get a new DSLR in the relatively near future, and am trying to decide between Canon and Nikon.

Personally, I would prefer to get a Nikon, but the one major drawback I have been struggling with is that the d3200 and 5200, which are the cameras I would normally be interested in if I got a Nikon dslr, are motorless.  You have to jump all the way up to a d7000, which is considerably more expensive, to get in-body motor.

I was browsing the various Nikon lenses in the Nikon lineup, and it looks as far as full frame lenses go (I would be trying to get full frame lenses whenever possible, rather than dx lenses, even tho I'd be starting with a dx camera, in order to be able to carry my lenses over to a full frame camera if I upgraded to full frame at some point down the road), a lot of the full frame lenses don't have AF motors in them, at least, the ones in my price range, like the ones that are $500 or less... the ones that are like $1,500 seem to have AF motors in the lenses more often, but those are out of my price range), meaning, on a d3200 or d5200, the lenses would basically not have AF, which is a pretty big dealbreaker for me.

So, I guess my questions are:

1.  Is it worth the struggle to buy a bunch of fx lenses to use on my dx camera, just so that when I upgrade to fx at some point in the distant future, I don't have to waste all my dx lenses and rebuild a whole new lineup of glass to use on my fx camera?  What I mean is, due to how the dx camera will basically use only the center portion of the lens (and yes, I know that's "the sweet spot" where the lens is at it's best, but even so...) given that it uses only a small portion of the center of the lens, and not the whole lens, my understanding is that  this is actually a bad thing, because it basically magnifies any imperfections in the lens per unit area of lens.  Like, if you think about it like this: pretend you have a white billboard with a tiny black speck on it in the middle of it.  Let's say the billboard is 10 feet by 10 feet in size, and the speck is the size of a grain of sand.  If you are "using" the whole board, as in, looking at the whole 10 foot by 10 foot board from 10 feet away, you won't even see that speck.  But if you instead just use only the center 1 foot by 1 foot segment of the center of that board, and stand a foot away and look at it, now you will actually see the speck.  Similarly, when using an fx lens on a dx camera, the sharpness value per unit area of lens material goes down, because the amount of sharpness per unit area of glass gets changed if you are basically cropping down to just a small portion of the glass of the lens and then blowing that up as being used for the entire size of your whole image, if you get what I'm saying.

Anyway, so, not sure if anyone knows about that issue, but if some of you do, I would appreciate advice/info on that (the using fx lenses on dx camera thing I asked about in the previous camera, that is).

2.  My other main question is: I've heard people mention that it is bad to rely on the in-body AF motors of a camera, like, using a non-motorized lens on a motorized body where the camera body basically provides the AF function of that lens.  I have heard that AF is a lot less precise/good/etc in this type of scenario compared to if you are using a lens that has an AF motor inside the lens, and are using that for the AF, instead of relying on the camera's in-body AF motor.  Is this true?  And if so, how drastic/severe of an issue is it?

Basically, I am trying to decide between:

Getting a cheap, awesome d3200/5200, which has the nice new top of the line dx 24mp sensor that just came out recently, which would be nice to have for so cheap, but be limited to lenses that have AF motors in the lens, since the 3200/5200 don't have in-body motors.

OR

Spending way more money on a d7000, which has an in-body motor so then I can buy any Nikon lens I want, regardless of whether it has in-lens motor or not.

AND/OR/semi-related thingie:

Buy or not buy fx lenses for my dx camera, like, whether it would be sub optimal MTF sharpness quality when being used on a dx camera, because of how it would use only a small volume of the ccenter portion of the lens glass instead of the full lens, and would thus have a dropoff in max sharpness capability of the lens when used that way (but with the potential positive of getting to carry those fx lenses up to my fx camera instead of having to buy a bunch of new lenses if/when I get an fx camera down the road).

You see why this cluster**** is making me somewhat consider Canon, even though Iwould strongly prefer Nikon if it wasn't for the in-body motor dilemma, since with Canon all the lenses have AF in them, so even if you get a cheapo entry level DSLR and get fx lenses, they will still all autofocus, unlike with Nikon, where a lot of the fx lenses would not autofocus on a motorless 3200/5200, since a lot of the lower end Nikon fx lenses often don't have in-lens AF (at least, the ones that would be in my price range/one's I would be most likley to be wanting to buy).

Help