Because it misses our position completely. It insinuates that we find something positive about abortion, when many of us don't.
Abortion is the snuffing of a human life, and has psychological and physiological consequences for the mother. Those who carelessly use it as birth control are worthy of condemnation. It is a tragedy (especially as the pregnancy progresses and the fetus gains more and more of the qualities we value in a person), and we are not trivializing it.
However, forcibly removing the rights of a woman to control what goes on in her own body is an even bigger tragedy.
Hence pro-choice, not pro-abortions.
How about pro-"having the state remove a woman's right to choose who can and can't use her body?"
Besides not fitting comfortably on a bumper sticker, it misrepresents many pro-lifers, who do acknowledge that depriving women of their right is not something they aspire to, but is only an acceptable evil to save a life.
It kinda puzzle me, this habit pro-choicers have of consistently (and I mean
really consistently) inflating the anti-abortion position out to "forcibly removing the rights of a woman to control what goes on in her own body" and "having the state remove a woman's right to choose who can and can't use her body". I wouldn't argue against outlawing marijuana use by calling it "the state regulating everything people are allowed to consume" or "suspending all human rights of self-determination and proclaiming martial law". Or something. Can't even come up with a half-decent analogy here.
I mean it's so obviously done here, MD, so you can present something you hope will sound worse than "the snuffing of a human life" that "has psychological and physiological consequences for the mother". As it is done elsewhere by others for largely the same reason.
I get that you want to acknowledge abortion is horrible while making the case that there are larger human rights/freedom/whatever issue at stake here...but I just don't think it holds up. We limit human rights, freedom, self-determination and whatever else along those lines that you might think relevant in
specific cases with just about every law we have that forbids something specifically.
If this argument works then it works for every law we have outlawing something, anything, that an individual choices for themselves as well.
And it completely and totally ignores the question of whether or not a fertilized egg/fetus/whathaveyou is a person with rights that should be upheld. Which is and has been the question all along, yeah?