Is it not a bit weird that the author describes this as a pro-choice memoir, but in her primary example, she is essentially arguing in the example that the woman made the wrong choice by allowing the infant to be born?

I don't get it. How can you argue for a woman's right to chose and then claim her choice not to terminate is somehow a horrific example of the pro-life movement? The woman in this example was afforded every feminist right to do as she pleased.

You see, it's not about choice to the radicals like the author here. Otherwise, she'd respect the choice of this woman and shut up.