No, the problem is that 96% of the people that are "pro-choice" cannot give even the rudiments of the pro-life argument, and as often been said, if you can't give your opponent's argument--you don't understand your own. "Evil?," no---intellectually vacant?, absolutely.
The fundamental question is not one of "choice," but of the nature of the child that is killed. Is it a child? Is it human? Does it suffer?
Just once before I die I would like to hear a "pro-choicer" declaim on the subject: "Resolved: That the entities in the womb which are stabbed and bludgeoned until they perish, do not suffer."
I'm not holding my breath. While I've met a lot of smart pro-choicers, I've never met one with enough applied brain wattage to take it on.
Instead, the pro-choicers apply 90% of their grey matter to finding ever more ambiguous vocabulary to describe their position, hoping to lose everyone else (and maybe the grating of their own conscience) in the fog of their sloppy, half-formed language.
My latest favorite in dim-witted abortspeak is "reproductive rights." What in tarnation could that possibly mean? Reproduction means to give rise to another human being, not to mash one in the process. But these dear folk can't bring themselves to call it what it is, namely, the "right" of non-reproduction.
Personally, I'd have more respect for them if they would fess up and plainspokenly state "Since these are our little $hits that are getting in our way, we can squash 'em if we like."