Everyone should stop using the euphemism "pro-choice" when referring to abortion.

To begin with, my opponent once again attempts to argue how our whole lives are filled with choices, and thus "pro-choice" is too vague a term. Yes, our lives are indeed filled with choices; but those choices may refer to many things. One of those things is abortion. When one speaks of abortion, it is clear that "anti-choice" refers to opponents of abortion, and "pro-choice" to supporters of abortion, for reasons already explained in round 1. Many terms can be used in different contexts; otherwise human commnication would be very limited. I believe it is very clear why and how the euphemism "pro-choice" is used when it comes to abortion. My opponent further argues how the term "pro-choice" is meant to misdirect. I do not see how one can be misdirected by that term unless he is completely unaware what he is talking about. It is very improbable that one would speak of abortion and not be aware he is speaking of it; that is most contradictory. If the topic of a conversation, monologue, speech, letter etc. is abortion, then it is logical that all the words used therein are meant to describe abortion and, by extension, the term "pro-choice" (or "anti-choice") is used in the context of that topic. If the topic is clear, there can be no misdirection. Thus, one can not speak of "disguising" one's opinion. If, for example, I am talking to my friend about abortion and I state I am pro choice; I find it very reasonable to believe he will understand what I mean. He will most certainly not be misdirected and believe I am referring to the choice between two types of fruit. My opponent then attempts to refute my argumentation by saying that there is a problem in the fact that opponents of abortion are as much "pro-life" as they are "anti-choice". That is true, but I do not see the problem. One can call opponents of abortion "anti-abortion", "pro-life" or "anti-choice". The meaning is the same, provided the topic is abortion; which it obviously is. Those terms are very often used and very familiar to people, and I fail to see the problem in having more valid terms for a certain thing. He concludes by saying my response: "certain euphemisms are used in appropriate contexts, and this euphemism is no exception" is weak, and it stays at that. He claimed my response is weak, but he did not justify that claim or offer a valid rebuttal to it. He then further states how I resorted to the "misdirection of a circular argument". I do not see how simply pointig out something has already been dealt with in a certain rebuttal is misdirective. I prefer to call it "practical", for I see no need to write the same refutation for the same point twice. My opponent's final accusation is that my case is weak and inadequate; another statement without justification. With this rebuttal I have further explained why the term "pro-choice" is appropriate, refuted my opponent's rebuttal which was basically the same as his opening statement, albeit without explanation and based on simple accusations such as "your rebuttal answer is weak". I believe that makes it very obvious how after this rebuttal and two of three rounds, con has already made it clear why the euphemism my opponent opposes is appropriate. Back to my opponent.