It's a little more complicated than that. In the beginning, there
was 'abortion.' Then came 'anti-abortion.' But rather
than be seen as anti-something, the anti-abortion crowd
wanted to be pro-something, so they euphemized anti-abortion
into prolife. The pro-abortion crowd, seeing the
chance to escape the negative aspect of abortion,
switched to pro-choice in emphasis of a woman's
right to choose. And there it remains. If anything was
won, it was Roe v Wade.
How about just "murder"?
The scientific impact of the event terminating pregnancy is now much clearer than it was at the time of Roe v. Wade. Does not stop abortion supporters from amending the constitution. Abortion supporters argue that there is a 50% majority in favor of abortion, therefore the Supreme Court decision is correct.
In fact, they might be correct although I doubt it. The politcial way to get the issue ont he table is to propose to amend the constitution to provide that "no person shall be deprivied of life . . . without due process of law except in the case of a child still attached to the umbilical cord". I tend to doubt you could get a majority in favor of such a proposition and failure to get such a majority would support action by the Supreme Court at the point the legal issue comes to the table.