#2 strikes me as especially true. A lot of the social conservative ideas are a bit less popular these days than in the recent past, especially among the younger crowd. Even though someone may not agree with the idea, many may be fine with accepting them in a candidate I suspect (assuming s/he has other redeeming qualities of course). Presenting them in a way that isn't so alarmist would make a huge difference.
You know try something like "unborn child is a victim too, and it's not their fault" instead of "it's not legitimate rape and it's a gift from God."
Yeah, it seems like a reasonable articulation of that position could be, "I just really believe in my heart that it's a human life. And while I understand that restricting abortion is an infringement on the rights of the mother, I think that the value of the life and the child's rights outweigh the other position."
You don't even have to bring religion into it - secular humanists and non-evangelicals have a strong universal value of human life as well. You could also, you know, have a plan that includes (a) increased funding for free birth control (to limit the need for abortions in the first place) and (b) increased funding for adoptive services and such, to help out the women who are forced to carry to term.
But then, that's not a position that's a winner in state politics, so you'd have to take a hard line against abortion in the early part of your career, and then tack center for a national election. A flip-flop that people would also jump all over.