I'll take this cue to reflect upon the language of 'pro-choice.' (I would have liked to do so when Frances replied to your criticism of 'pro-choice,' but better late than never.)
Frances wrote (in reply to Carrol):
>Opportunist, huh? I think the pro-choice language came out of one of the
>more effective arms of the feminist movement, and at the time the language
>was developed, this was a pretty radical notion for lots of people. Still
>is, actually. Women are still bombarded with propaganda that purports to be
>the authority on what women are supposed to do with their bodies (shave!
>diet! pluck! cream! makeup!) and having a voice out there that says it's a
>woman's body and a woman's choice still needs to be heard and still has
>something to teach. I wish the pro-choice language was used more frequent;ly
>to talk about other aspects of female embodiment, actually. So, yeah,
>Carrol, go ahead and attack liberal feminism as being opportunist. It's
>pretty easy to be in the theoretical vanguard when there's no chance that
>your theory is going to affect you, huh? The prochoice language is not
>something that we, as people with an investment in the issue, can afford to
>give up (obviously you're not one of those people, or you wouldn't be
>suggesting that an effective rhetorical strategy be replaced with one that
>is simply more ideologically pure). To paraphrase an old liberal feminist
>chestnut. Carrol, keep your theory off my body.
Leaving aside (for the moment) whether the 'pro-choice' language was ever effective (and if so, what their effects were), as of now, I think that Frances would also agree that the 'pro-choice' language has not been an effective weapon to _fight back_ against the Right and reverse their gains in chipping away both the legal right to abortion and substantial access to it.
I'll reflect on possible reasons why the language of 'pro-choice' has left us open to attacks from the Right _and_ unable to fight back effectively.
(1) The 'pro-choice' language abstractly empowers us as individual women endowed with the right to choose, but it is a language that also substantially empowers the state and capital (and bearers of their power) to single out this medical procedure called abortion and make it 'optional,' not part of general health care. For instance, doctors in training are not required to learn this life-saving & life-enhancing procedure. Many doctors & hospitals refuse to offer this service upon a 'moral' or religious ground without much vocal criticism from others (while many leftists have been quick to criticize the idea & practice of 'school choice'); after all, the 'pro-choice' language makes abortion a matter of individual 'choice,' and by extension people are led to think that it is a legitimate choice of doctors & hospitals to make a 'choice' of not offering it.
(2) While 'pro-choice' language may have served better-off women reasonably well, it has done a disservice to poor women and young women. Poor women may not be able to come up with money to turn a theoretical 'choice' into an ability to exercise it. Young persons of both genders are generally not allowed to make many legal choices that adults can, so it follows that young women may be denied the right to choose abortion, as is the case with the demand for 'parental consent.'
(3) 'Pro-choice' retains a murky air of euphemism. The right to choose what? The right to choose abortion, isn't it? Why is this word 'abortion' not uttered? Why treat the word abortion as if it were some kind of obscene language, not to be spoken among respectable people?
(4) Isn't 'choice' one of those 'empty labels' that obscure what is really at stake, in this case, women's right to control our own reproductive capacity, and more specifically, our right _not_ to have a child when we do not want to?
(5) While in most instances 'choices' are spoken of as matters of desire, in the case of abortion, the language of 'pro-choice' notwithstanding, it has been mainly discussed as a matter of need, nay, desperation and hardship. Why noone seems to speak of abortion as a matter of women's _desire_ (desire for freedom, free time, pleasure, autonomy, self-determination, etc.), not just need? Is it because desire is still considered a shameful feeling that self-sacrificing women are not to possess?
Yoshie