The same technicality can be applied to the terms pro-life and anti-life. It’s also true in a most literal sense that pro-choice people are against certain lives. If you’re in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion for reasons other than rape or medical conditions, then that is even more applicable. I don’t try to spell it out in a way that accuses pro-choice people of being anti human life because it’s incredibly cheap and unfair to do that. Pro-life and pro-choice are and have been the descriptors for a long time. Yes, neither are good when you want nuance, as one implies that the life of a fetus with minimal development is more important than the life of a pregnant woman who could potentially die from complications of giving birth, and pro-choice, without any explanation, implies that you’re in favor of a woman’s right to abort a healthy, viable baby as late as the third trimester. Most political labels are devoid of nuance, but they’re easy to say and slap on idiotic bumper stickers so people like them. Both also imply that their opponents have malintent (i.e. pro-death and anti-choice). My policy is, instead of assigning yourself a label, just explain what your position is.
For example, I’m in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion in the cases of rape, medical complications, and in general for the very early stages of development, but am otherwise opposed to it; I also think birth control and sex education should be much more emphasized and available to prevent abortion. Was that so hard? No. It’s way better than just saying, “I’m pro-life,” and hoping that everyone knows what I mean.
I think you raise a good point. I personally don’t mind the “pro-” labels. It’s the “anti-” labels that I think are unfair in the image they convey. But I see your point that even the “pro-” terms can imply the “anti-” meanings as well. Explanation is always a lot clearer. Thanks for the post.