So, for example, a Christian has good reason to believe that the unborn from conception is a person ...BUT...he might not be able to convince the hacks of unbelief. In that case, the Christian may opt for more modest attempts which forestalls fully attempting to END the practice and allows abortion to continue unchecked, BUT, that is alright because while millions of unborn innocents are STILL being slaughtered, the godless can be educated into becoming godly and in about 10 thousand years, abortion will be stopped once and for all.
Yeah. I get it.
Pushing for one does not mean forestalling on the other. It means doing what you can to stop the slaughter. If you know a full out ban on all abortions will be rejected it does not mean you stop arguing for a ban on some or on additional restrictions. All the while making it a point to try and move public opinion to pro life beliefs. You accomplish what you can while putting the means in place to accomplish what you must.
Should we not push for example requiring ultra sounds because it does not call for a full ban on abortion?
We are in a battle each bit of ground we gain means the enemy must yield. But just like in all wars there is important work done away from the battlefield. This is mainly getting those who are on the sidelines to truly understand why abortion is wrong so that they join the battle. The battle is not weakened because some work behind the frontlines.
Also I am curious how would you argue to someone who believes that abortion is about the right to choose as guaranteed in the Constitution? What would be your springboard for challenging this belief? How would you do so without appeal to religion?