[Disclaimer: The following post is about semantics and branding. It also happens to mention abortion. However, it is not intended as commentary on abortion, or to invite commentary on abortion. It is intended only to comment on linguistic issues.]

The problem, from a branding point of view, with the label "pro-choice" is that "choice" is not a very strong word, especially considering that the opposite lobby calls itself "pro-life". "Life" is very strong, meaningful word. It is a Big Important Concept. If you were doing some kind of layout or design thing incorporating words that represent Big Important Universal Concepts, the word "life" would be on there. The word "Choice" probably would not. If we momentarily forgot all knowledge of the significance of these words to the abortion issue and asked, "What is more important, Life or Choice?" most people would probably choose the word "life".

Consider the ubiquitous phrase "a woman's right to choose". Again, if we remove all familiarity with this phrase's significance to the abortion issue, it sounds rather weak. Choosing is a banal everyday activity. Coffee or tea? Apple or orange? "Right to life" sounds much stronger than "right to choose", especially since it would be very easy to argue that even if a person cannot choose whether to terminate a pregnancy, they still have the right to choose many many other things.

The keyword for a label like this should be selected with the target audience in mind. Who is the target audience for the pro-abortion movement? People who don't believe that a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy if she feels it necessary to do so. That's right, people who would consider an abortion are NOT the target audience, people who are unilaterially opposed to abortion ARE. The phrases "pro-choice" and "a woman's right to choose" were doubtless created with respect for the complexity of the issues and the many many factors involved in a decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, as well as respect for the fact that only those directly involved can be fully qualified to make such a monumental decision, and then only for their specific situation. They are very careful, respectful phrases, created with those who could not say they would never get an abortion in mind. The problem is that this is not the target audience. The target audience is much less likely to see it as a complex problem, much less likely to see it as a set of factors to be carefully weighed. The target audience is more likely to see abortion as Something You Don't Do. Period.

The phrase "a woman's right to choose" alienate the target audience in two ways. First, it gives the impression that they mean "right to choose whether to have an abortion", which, to someone who is opposed to abortion, would give the impression that they trivialize the importance of abortion. "Choosing" might make it sound like they're eeny-meeny-miny-moing rather than weighing a complex set of factors. After all, we also "choose" whether to have a bagel or a muffin for breakfast. Upon further reflection it becomes clear that "Right to choose" means "right to choose whether to be pregnant, whether to be a parent for the rest of my life, whether to burden an innocent human being with this set of problems", choosing one's path in life more than choosing one single action, but people aren't likely to put this much analysis into something they firmly believe is unconditionally wrong. To the target audience, "choice" would seem rather trival compared with the other factors at play.

The other way the phrase "woman's right to choose" alienates its target audience is by its reference to a woman's right. Of course, we all know that, as of this writing, only women can become pregnant so therefore only women can have abortions, but the emphasis on the concept of women serves to alienate men from the pro-choice lobby. The pro-life lobby has no such alienating phrases. Now I know that there are a great many men who are pro-choice even though it doesn't involve them as directly, just as a great many people everywhere in the world campaign for causes that do not involve them directly. But I'm sure there are also some men who perceive pro-choice as A Women's Issue, and therefore do not pay it as much attention. This isn't because of misogyny or bigotry or ignorance, but rather a sort of mundane everyday selfishness that we all have. For example, I think having the option to send one's child to daycare or to stay home and raise one's child oneself is important, but I'm not about to get up and march at a demonstration about it because it simply does not affect my life. Similarly, marking pro-choice as A Woman's Issue probably makes some men, even if the fully believe that it is important for abortion to be available, less inclined to actively do something about it.

So how should pro-choice brand itself? I don't have an answer to that. But to compete with the Big Idea of "LIFE", they need a word that's stronger than "choice". Something freedom-esque perhaps. But the most important thing in such a rebranding would be to keep in mind that their target audience is NOT the people who are already on their side.