The "logic" of being "pro-choice"

One of the things I most love about pro-life people is how logical they are. They don't hide behind ridiculous euphemisms like that all time pro-abortion favourite "pro-choice".

Randy Alcorn gives us an example of this superb logic in this piece.

I'd love to see a pro-abortion write a similar article defending their favourite word. Of course for such an article to be as effective as Alcorn's article, it would have to be logical, which of course is impossible. So it will never happen.

Alcorn ends with this:

"Pro-lifers must never argue against choice—that’s a battle that can’t be won, and shouldn’t be fought even if it could be won. Rather, we must argue against the real issue—abortion. 

Whenever we hear “pro-choice,” we must ask, and urge others to ask, “Exactly what choice are we talking about?” 

If its abortion, the question is, “Do you think people should have the right to choose to kill children?” By opposing abortion we are not opposing choice in general. We are opposing one choice in particular—child-killing. 

Consider the popular pro-choice question, which I’ve seen on bumper stickers: “If you don’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?” It’s intended as a discussion stopper. But notice how choice is substituted for abortion. When we insert words that reflect reality, the question becomes, “If you don’t trust me to kill a child, how can you trust me to raise a child?” . . . Huh? 

When we oppose the “right to choose” rape or “the right to choose” abortion, we aren’t opposing a right. Rather, we’re opposing a wrong. And we’re not narrow-minded and bigoted for doing so."