Why prolife critics can have it both ways

On the one hand, abolitionists are accused of flaunting good works.
On the other hand, since we stand against incremental legislation and incrementalist candidates for public office, and since we don't vote in elections where the only choices are bad ones, it is said we do nothing, we are more concerned with moral and ideological purity than with sparing lives, etc.
So, which is it? Do abolitionists do nothing, or do we flaunt our good works? 

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/06/what-abolitionists-do-why.html

Actually, we can have it both ways. That's because the criticism refers to different things. Prolifers don't criticize abolitionists for doing and not doing the same thing, or simultaneously supporting and opposing the same thing. Hence, there's no inconsistency in the criticism.  This isn't even hard to grasp:

i) To begin with, there's a difference between flaunting deeds you deem to be good, and deeds that are actually good. The Pharisees flaunted their "good works," but in many cases, those weren't truly good works. They were just public demonstrations which the Pharisees thought made them look good, which is why they did them. They were not doing good. 

ii) Moreover, the genuine good works which abolitionists do are not abolitionist distinctives. Rather, that's just a continuation of the same kinds of good works which prolifers have been doing for decade.  

iii) Conversely, abolitionists oppose the distinctive good works of prolifers, viz. putting legal restrictions on abortion.