There's no such thing as a neutral term. There is only politics. The above poster was actually conscientious by using the most negative terms for both sides: "anti-life" and "anti-choice," because one side fashions itself "pro-choice" and the other "pro-life." But because of politics, in the media the dominant language used favors one side over the other: "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion." They group pro-lifers along with terrorists who bomb abortion clinics. This is like saying that Martin Luther King Jr. belonged to the Black Panthers. Certainly it's not fair to call pro-choice "anti-life," but neither is it fair to call pro-life "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice." Pro-choice advocates are not fighting for death but for freedom. But pro-life advocates are not fighting against freedom, but for human dignity--for a child who does not choose to die. So what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but politics decides which roses should be considered sweeter.
Parent post is an Insightful gem. Well done azcoyote.
Too wordy. How 'bout just "harmless".
Too brief. How 'bout now "mostly harmless".
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.