Pro-life doesn't mean advocating for making babies.
Really? If you're pro-life, you're okay with the right to choose what happens to your body? You just shouldn't advocate too hard for the "right to have an abortion"?
Huh. I just explained this. Pro-life means that you support the right of the unborn to live. Specifically, a pro-life person believes that the right of the unborn to live outweighs the right of the woman to choose a health action which would terminate that life (ie: an elective abortion). The only exception (for most anyway) is when the woman's own life is in danger (since that's also "pro-life"). It's not really that difficult of a position to grasp.
Because I'm pretty sure pro-life advocates are 100% for bringing the baby to term but if you're arguing otherwise...
And? How does this relate to your claim that pro-abortion means someone who likes abortions and thinks everyone should get one? That would relate to pro-life meaning someone who likes making babies and thinks everyone should have one. But that's not what's going on.
And try to keep up: The abortion debate is about what happens after you get pregnant. It's not about guns and it's not about encouraging conception prior to the fact. The fact that your position is silly doesn't mean you should go trying to change the topic.
Except that your attempted definition of "pro-abortion" isn't about what a woman does after being pregnant, but about what other people think should happen. So being "pro-abortion" means that someone else wants to talk any/all pregnant women into having abortions. It's an absurd and completely unworkable definition, but it's the one you tried to come up with
. It's silly. Just as "pro-life" meaning someone who wants other people to have babies is silly. I was showing how absurd your definition was by countering with an equally absurd definition for the opposing position.
Pro-abortion means believing in a "right to abort", as opposed to pro-choice which merely means a woman's right to control her own body may outweigh the right of the fetus to live. Pro-choice is countered by pro-life because the pro-live position believes that the right to life always outweighs the woman's choice
(except for where her life is at risk, which isn't really about choice at that point). Pro-abortion is in its own weird world, where you decide that abortion is an actual right. I use the label specifically to apply to people who engaged in somewhat ridiculous lengths to dehumanize a developing fetus in order to protect the "right to abort".
If you want to argue about the label, that's your choice (haha!). Um... But that's what I'm talking about. And that position is very different from the classic pro-choice position that is enshrined in the Roe v Wade decision. Whatever you want to call it, that "side" has moved well beyond what that decision ruled.
But if you're so upset about the label, what label would you use? I happen to think it's important to make a distinction between those who believe that the issue is one of conflicting rights between the woman over her body and a developing fetus' right to life and those who believe in an absolute right to abort, which apparently seems to completely invalidate any rights of the fetus, to the point of many people argue that a fetus isn't really even human, so there's no moral issue to even debate. Call it what you will, those are radically different positions. And unfortunately, the desire to conceal the former within the latter, forces people to have to choose between the two apparent "sides", when I believe there are actually three position in play. Again, one of them just doesn't stand up well to public scrutiny so it hides behind the veneer of the seemingly benign "pro-choice" banner.
I wouldn't even bring it up, except for the very noticeable shift in arguments claiming to be pro-choice that I've seen just in my lifetime. I don't ever recall anyone trying to argue that a fetus was no different than a collection of random cells, like fingernails, or cancer, or virus, which can just be removed without any issue at all. And I believe that this shift has occurred because it's easier to rationalize that "choice" by making that argument. But I think that's self deception. And not remotely what the original court decision was about.