Everyone is pro-life. Everyone believes in preserving the lives of sentient human babies. The relevant question is concerned with what counts as a sentient human baby.
Everyone is pro-choice. Everyone believes that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies... up until it conflicts with the life of another. The relevant question is concerned with when choice conflicts with life.
Of course, if it is a sentient human baby, then they are anti-life. And if it isn't, then they are anti-choice. But in discourse we shouldn't be so steeped in our conclusion that we draw our language from there. The language we use ought to be directed at the crux of the dispute, because others are not where we are in the logical progression.
If you approach discussion using language that only fits from beyond your conclusion, you're probably not good at intellectual empathy.
A parallel: I have long believed that tickling is torture. The tickling of children is therefore child torture. So my treatment of those who disagree will be as those who are pro-child-torture. And I will call my group the anti-child-torture group.
That sounds pretty closed minded.
