I'm not quite sure how to phrase the problem I see with the terminology as it stands. "Life" is too broad a term? Not quite that, the same charge can be leveled at "Choice", but the latter seems to better summarize the position being endorsed. The "pro-life" thing is very much a movement aimed at achieving a negative result (by which I mean, it's meant to ensure something is not the case, not that it is; nothing ethical in that description), so "pro-" anything doesn't exactly work. Fuck, even if they called it "anti-death", that'd be slightly better, if still rather disingenuous.
This is very much rambling, yeah.
Then you must have equal concerns with Progressive?
Actually, no! Progressive doesn't necessarily imply moral value unless you already think that change is inherently good. I suppose the word does have positive connotations associated with it, but hardly to the same extent as "life"; so maybe, on further consideration, I might have similar problems, but definitely not equal. The magnitude is pretty different, even being charitable.
For that matter, I'd argue that those movements you mentioned in your more recent post actually were "progressive", but they weren't progressive toward a goal I'd care to see approached. Honestly, you made my point better than I did.
EDIT: Ah-ha! I have got it. Here's the problem.
As a pro-choice guy, I would be satisfied on the issue if every woman had the option, no matter what she chose. Every woman could choose not to have an abortion, and assuming they made that decision freely (a huge assumption, but bear with me), I would be okay with that as far as my arguments about this are concerned (there might be individual issues like income and all that, but that's a different thing as far as I'm concerned; it's not about principle). The implication of that is that my opposition does
not want women to have that choice, which is true (and necessarily so).
Were I a pro-life guy, I would be satisfied if every fetus was saved. That is true. The implication with the language, though, is that your opposition wants the fetuses to die. Nobody (who is taken seriously, I hope) argues that pro-choice people want mandatory abortions whenever it's considered, but
the implication is still there in the language. "Hey, this guy wants babies to die". That isn't true; I could be perfectly happy if no abortion ever happened, as long as the option existed. A pro-life guy would only be happy if the option didn't exist, because if it does, then either it's being used or it is pretty pointless.