Those statements are mutually exclusive.
I would disagree with you here. As my good friend Torie reminds me now and again when I get a bit too strident, the abortion issue is a continuum from your absolutist pro life position to the Clinton pro abortion position of a baby being a fetus whose mother could "choose" to kill it even after birth.
Not only is it a continuum but people shift along that continuum through out there lives. Whereas at one point in my life I weakly supported the pro choice view, I am now pro life with the understanding that even children conceived from rape and incest are not guilty of anything and therefore should not be the recipient of a death penalty for somebody elses crimes.
But I also understand that there are many views along that continuum and the way to keep the flow moving from pro choice to pro life is incrementally. I know lots of folks who would vote to ban PBA but would not vote to ban first trimester abortion. Should my position towards them be, well OK, go away you're no friend of mine? How does that do any good for the thousands of near full term babies who will be killed this year while they are almost born? All or none?
Well in point of fact, you are right of course, though it wasn't always so. Once we conservatives get onto the soggy ground of "people of goodwill may disagree" on an issue like this, we usually find ourselves being incrementally marginalized out of the debate.
Nevertheless, I hope you are right. I hope we can somehow reverse engineer the Gramscian incrementalist technique and use it to our advantage on this issue.
I'm not suggesting anything like that. Like you, I'll take a PBA ban (a "real" one without mother's health loopholes anyway) and am more than willing to move on to the next battle. Bush's stated positions, from his coy dodge on the Supreme Court to his flat refusal to do anything about RU486, to his support for Planned Parenthood and international family planning, reveal that he's a liar when he says he's pro-life.
He can't have it both ways -- either he's a pro-lifer or he supports abortion. Which is it going to be? (That's a purely rhetorical question of course.)
This is a typical problem within political movements. The abolitionist movement had similar internal dynamics.