What does "pro-choice" mean? Is "pro-abortion" a bad word?

The word pro-choice, and pro-choice rhetoric in general, has always interested me. In my opinion, being pro-choice means that you support a woman's right to have complete control over her body, procreative choices, and reproductive health. The philosophy of pro-choice goes beyond just reproductive rights to include access to contraceptives/birth control, sexual education and literacy, freedom from sexual assault/relationship violence, bodily autonomy, and individual liberties (not to mention women's liberation!).

But it's always fascinated me how distanced pro-choice rhetroic can get from abortion, and indeed, many pro-choice advocates do not consider themselves pro-abortion. Pro-abortion can mean many things to many people, as can pro-choice, but does pro-abortion necessarily have to have a negative connotation? In the same way that "pro-choice" means that you support a wide range of reproductive choices (following through with pregancies to term, abortion, adoption, etc), can "pro-abortion" not have similar and more broad connotations, i.e., you support the basic freedom and choice of being able to have an abortion, but do not see it as the right or ideal solution for every woman in every situation?

In society and American culture, however, it would be inconceivable to imagine the reappropriation of the term "pro-abortion" to mean something other than supporting abortion over other reproductive options. Don't believe me? Google "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice" and see what pops up.

I disgress though- my main point to this whole rant is the continuum of the pro-choice movement and while acknowledging the validity of a heterogeneity of opinions, I see the harm in purportedly pro-choice individuals allowing for reproductive rights to be chipped away little by little. For example, there are numerous different opinions within the pro-choice movement on whether parental notification for minors should exist, if there should be limits or "caps" on how many abortions a woman can get, etc. etc. Case in point- look at Obama's recent comments about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. This is someone who has been on record saying he supports a woman's right to choose and also someone who's gotten an 100% pro-choice voting rating from organizations like NARAL, yet he tells us that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is no big deal and is just continuing the policy of the Hyde Amendment (which is not true).

At a time when women are being told to "take one for the team" in order for health care reform to pass, and not worry themselves over the chipping away of abortion rights, I think it's important to re-examine what being pro-choice (and pro-abortion, if you've ever identified as that) means and where it's appropriate to draw the line or compromise (if ever).