Either I was unclear or my point went over your head. I'll leave it to you to guess which I believe.
Arguing that pro-lifers want to control women's bodies is co-mingling intent and the practical methodology involved in realizing that intent, and then picking a an alternative, false intent to suit one's views.
The baseline of pro-lifers is that they wish to save the lives of the unborn. The means to do so will restrict the choices of women who wish to abort their unborn children.
Now we can reasonably argue over which imperative is most crucial. but it's deceptive to cast the pro-life movement's intent as "wanting to control women's bodies," just like it would have been deceptive to cast the motivation of American patriots during our revolution as "a desire to kill Englishmen"
And just as it would be deceptive to cast the intent of the Pro-Choice movement as "wanting to kill unborn children"
Pro-choice folks wish to preserve the right of a woman to have an abortion. It logically follows from this that, in practice, they want to preserve the right to kill unborn children, but I doubt you would be happy if I categorized you position this way.
Let me hasten to add that I know that there are people who do accuse Pro-Choicers of wanting to murder babies. I refute that position as well, and in any case, two wrongs don't make a right.
The argument that "Republicans want to control women's bodies" is a vile distortion of reality and people who use it lack intellectual honesty.
The same can be said about people who argue "Democrats want to kill babies," or who might have said "Americans want to murder Englishmen."