Source: Benatar, David. Better Never to Have Been (2008 1 edn). p. 162 Middle.
The pro-death view should be of interest even to those who do not accept it. One of its valuable features is that it offers a unique challenge to those pro-lifers who reject a legal right to abortion.⁴⁰ Whereas a legal pro-choice position does not require a pro-lifer to have an abortion—it allows a choice—a legal pro-life position does prevent a pro-choicer from having an abortion. Those who think that the law should embody the pro-life position might want to ask themselves what they would say about a lobby group that, contrary to my arguments in Chapter 4 but in accordance with pro-lifers’ commitment to the restriction of procreative freedom, recommended that the law become pro-death. A legal pro-death policy would require even pro-lifers to have abortions. Faced with this idea, legal pro-lifers might have a newfound interest in the value of choice.
⁴⁰ Lest it be thought that all pro-lifers, by definition, oppose a legal right to abortion, I should note that one can embrace the pro-life position as the correct moral position, but think that people should nonetheless have a legal right to choose. The distinction is between one’s personal moral views and what one thinks the law should say
If I'm correct, Benatar is foregrounding the deprivation of choice common to pro-life and pro-death: both outlooks forestall someone from choosing abortion and death.
But how'd this consequence (of the pro-death) sway pro-lifers? A pro-lifer would never accept some of the pro-death outlook's premises. Though a "legal pro-death policy would require even pro-lifers to have abortions," pro-lifers can reject the pro-death, while upholding their pro-lifer, outlook.