I cannot, unfortuantely, off the top of my head, think of an alternative to "pro-choice" that is quite as simple and pithy....However, I have thought of a phrase or slogan...while I'm sure these words (or something along these lines) have been stated before, it might work as even a bumper sticker:

"WOMEN'S LIVES, WOMEN'S DECISIONS"

"as has happened with every other phrase that stops at the word rights--those in opposition need only inquire about the other side of that coin, "responsibilities." -- just a thought

REALLY?

Like, Civil Rights, and the Voting Rights Act, and Gay Rights? None of those worked, eh? There's a REASON they call it Gay Rights and not "Gay Choice."

sounds great on first listen. Really.

Then a moment's reflection and you realize every other group on the left side of things could easily co-opt the phrase to include everything from implantation to surrogacy to gay adoption and even the polygamists holed up in Utah banging their teenage cousins. I render judgment only on that last group...but hey, who are we to insist on drawing lines when we finally turn squeamish?

And--as has happened with every other phrase that stops at the word rights--those in opposition need only inquire about the other side of that coin, "responsibilities." And we're off to the races again saying, "You have no right to judge how we handle our responsibilities!" New phrase, same old arguments. New song, same old dance.

Yes, a select few of us may make the official decision this is our new phrase and we'll air quote the old one should you dare mention it and we really are in love with the way this one sounds...and we'll keep getting our asses kicked because we refuse to confront the rest of the issues that are inextricably bound to abortion. Because if we do, we might have to cede a tiny bit of ground, dare I say even change a behavior or two. Can't have that.

Now let's get back to investing all our energy on a magic phrase.

"Capitalism?"

Tangoman, you prove my point about how off the track you have gotten. Using a word like that in your post illustrates how your focus is really not with Reproductive Rights at all, you just want to use the phrase to justify whatever activities you wish to promote or engage in.

This is not about body ownership in the specific way you have framed it. Otherwise it would be legal to sell your organs, and it would be legal to sell your body for sex. So before you start arguing on ownership of the vagina, let me stop you now.

I don't buy into your argument. I also maintain, obviously, that this is about a woman's right to bear children or not. It is not about the rights of men, as you stated. We do not need to cling to the term "Pro-Choice" simply to hang on to our rights and not have them co-opted by other interests. I could EASILY argue that Pro-Choice could mean the choice of the father too - that it is his choice to not tell her the rubber is broke because he wants her to get pregnant, or wants her to carry the baby to term and then sign it over to him because it's his sperm. I could also claim "Family Planning" be suggestive of Grandparents Rights (they're family, right?), or that the father is the head of the family and should have equal or greater say than the woman who conceived.

I'm sorry, but the phrase is on solid ground.

This is not about surrogacy, outsourcing, capitalism, or ways in which men can control reproduction.

I agree that "pro-choice" is a weak name for a movement that is critical for the protection of a woman's right to have control over her own body. I think "reproductive rights" states the concept more clearly and gets away from the focus on abortion.

The truth is that the forces arrayed against any woman having the right to make choices for herself about when and why she has sex and how she deals with the results of sexual behavior see pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for 'uppity' women. They not only oppose abortion for any reason, but also oppose the use of condoms to protect against sexually transmitted diseases, as well as other forms of birth control.

So, that seems to me to be a legitimate point of debate and discussion on "outsourcing" surrogacy. Why not find a surrogate here in America? Because it's too expensive and the female carrying the baby might demand some rights? But that's what we stand for: Protecting women and their bodies. Even surrogate women.

Does it matter why a women wants to have an abortion? No, it doesn't. It's her body and it's her decision, and the anti-abortion protesters can point to all sorts of heartfelt concern, moral teachings, good outcomes, ethical principles, etc and for all of their do-goodedness they would be depriving the women of the ability to control her own body.

What you're doing here, by legitimizing class-based concerns about surrogacy, is saying that poor women should lose control over their wombs, or we should give serious consideration to depriving them of their reproductive rights, because you, or others, elevate the need to snuff out capitalist transactions over her bodily sovereignty.

reproductive rights whose intention is to protect and center around a woman in matters of abortion, contraception, Plan B, access to doctors, privacy with medical records, and primary control over one's body instead of the husband or State having that control.

No, reproductive rights are just that - rights to control ones reproduction. These rights apply to men and women both, unlike the rights to abortion.

If you want a closer alignment between abortion rights and feminism, where the movement and the ideas can both support the fight against THE PATRIARCHY, then the current terminology of Pro-Choice nicely excludes the interests of men. If you broader the terminology to include other ideas centered on reproduction then you lose the tight alignment with feminism and by broadening the tent you're going to lose some uncompromising feminists who filter life through a PATRIARCHY lense. You can't have it both ways.