A middle ground

I am struggling to understand Jim Wallis' full point regarding a middle ground for pro-life, pro-choice debates. Yet, I agree with him.
Like gay rights, this is the hot issue that determines one's "seriousness" as a Christian. One is either an Evangelical Conservative Christian or one is a Socially Conscerned Christian. What would happen if you combined the two?
Wallis argues for a pro-life/pro-choice political agenda which does not try to outlaw or condone all abortions. Instead the agenda attempts to minimize these difficult situations.
The two extremes argue:
1) What happens if a woman is raped, shouldn't she be able to abort that child?
2) What if you were an engaged teenage girl who suddenly got pregnant by someone other than your fiancee, in a society that would kill you for being pregnant out of wedlock. Would you allow her to have an abortion? --Well guess what you just killed Jesus.

Let's face it, death and destruction are inherent in our situation. Atrocities happen all the time. And as socially concerned, conservative Christians we should be fighting against those atrocities. Which means we address the serious concern that other raises. We proclaim a God who transforms a culture that allows rape and other situations occur which may necessitate an abortion.
Similar we stand up for the oppressed, which not only includes the fetus, but also includes women and the poor.
Rather than protesting what we are against, we should try acknowledge the others concern and attempt to minimize those situations. That is what a socially concerned conservative Christian should do...forego our selfish desire to be "right" and selflessly serve those we often oppose.