I'm not afraid of the debate degenerating into "is not", "is too", if that's what the debate is fundamentally about. To me that's progress, because at least the nature of the impasse has been acknowledged. Besides, it's possible to nibble at the edges of the "is not"/"is too" argument in meaningful ways, which indeed you have done. In contrast, arguing for wide abortion rights even if a fetus should have human rights isn't just silly; it's hazardous. It's possible to reconcile a belief in liberal abortion rights with a belief that the fetus is fully human, but the moral synthesis of the two beliefs is ugly and brutal, so if you intimate, in an attempt to sidestep the religious aspect of the abortion debate, that some pro-choicers have reconciled them (which I expect really almost never happens), then people will probably just be revolted if they take the message seriously.

I didn't follow the partial-birth abortion debate very closely, although maybe I should have. I'd readily believe that many from the pro-life crowd engaged in shady and misleading debate tactics. Attempts by some pro-choicers to paint all pro-lifers as misogynists are also very distasteful, of course, as well as coming as close as you'll find to the godawful "How dare those people inconvenience women by trying to save babies' lives!" argument that I keep harping on.