Excuse me, you two, the definition of pro-choice is believing that women have a choice when it comes to whether or not they have an abortion. It doesn't have anything to do with a woman choosing what she does with her body in general. I do believe that a woman should be able to choose what she does with her body, BUT not when it effects a child that she is bringing into this world (can we not see the difference between a singular woman and a pregnant woman who is giving birth to a child?). How can you not see the clear difference? You may as well argue that parents should be allowed to do whatever they wish with their children until they're 16. There is a reason we have preventions and laws because not everyone has the correct judgement and the best intentions for their children.
If a mother is a drug addict and has been taking drugs all through out her pregnancy, the baby gets taken when the woman gives birth. Do I believe that a mother should be locked up or have her child taken away because she's been smoking? No, but there are clear studies and evidence that prove that smoking has an effect on babies - premature births, stillbirth, sudden infant death syndrome, heart problems later in life. There have been threads discussing this on here, real life examples.
The baby doesn't have rights until they're born. Once they're born, is it fair that they could possibly be born with health problems that could have been prevented?
And, just to make it absolutely crystal clear, I do believe it is a woman's right to decide whether she has a child or not. However, if you're bringing a child into this world, you should be responsible and not smoke, just like you would eat a healthy diet, not drink heavily or take harmful drugs.