"Pro choice" and "pro life" are not opposites.

Someone who is "pro choice" advocates for the right of a woman to choose her form of birth control, including barrier types, spermicides, morning after pills, and surgery. Someone who is anti-choice, wants her choice to be made by statute. That is definitional. It is not rhetorical. One either advocates for her right to choose, or one is anti-choice, and wants to make that choice for her.

One who calls themself "pro life" suggests the s/he is a defender of life. This suggests, rhetorically, that one who is not "pro-life" is against life. This is rhetorical. Most of the people who call themselves "pro-life" oppose the rights of people to choose. They are therefore more accurately called "anti-choice." They also oppose the rights of people to "choose" various forms of birth control that prevent conception.

From the voices of those "pro life" advocates we hear on the news, they mostly also eat living beings of other species, endorse war and execution of the guilty, and endorse large scale gun ownership. These things would suggest that they are not truly defenders of life.

Further, they advocate for persecution of people who are not heterosexuals, or who have sex when they are not married. If one distills the "pro-life" veiwpoint, the best that one can come up with is that they are simply very uncomfortable with matters of sexuality, and wish to impose their discomfort on everyone else.

"Pro-life" is not an accurate characterization. It is a rhetorical structure. And anyone who uses the term is allowing them a rhetorical win, as opposed to being literally accurate.

Saul