However, another interesting complication arises from the fact that the term ("choose" being a transitive verb) is ambiguous.
As I have said, the phrase "the right to choose" gives no direct object. Because of this, linguistics state that it must be taken at its broadest (the right to choose anything, cf. freedom of speech) or its weakest (the right to choose at least one thing, whatever that may be). In the latter case, the term becomes meaningless, as one could imagine a dictatorial state not violating said right, no matter how strict, as long as the people keep at least one freedom, not matter how trivial (they have the right to choose, and they're exercising it by picking their outfits)..
The former is where things get interesting. If one were to support choice for everyone on everything, that would seem swell. At first.
But what about the choice to rape? Rape takes away the choice of the victim. And who are you to to tell a man he cannot choose to form the very dictatorial state described above? Why should stop a woman from choosing to steal your car? The same argument was made for slavery: "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave!"
Supporting the right to choose anything includes supporting the right to choose to take away the right of others to choose, as evidenced by abortion's removal of this right from the unborn.
The term "pro-choice" is a piece of political framing that, when examined, is meaningless at best and internally contradictory at worst.