Only if you accept a priori an answer to the core issue which is debated in the abortion issue: whether an unborn baby should be protected as a human life.

Nobody argues that government is invasive if it forbids stabbing a toddler to death behind closed doors. People do argue that one may stab a fetus to death behind closed doors.

The point of contention is not privacy, but the definition of human life. Pretending that the issue is already settled even as you argue for a particular policy is either naive or disingenuous.

A person acting against that belief in order to satisfy your own personal beliefs would be a hypocrite, no?

My overall point is there is no conflict in accepting his good faith position that you agree with while rejecting his other good faith position you don't agree with.