I've been reading William James' lectures on Pragmatism and I like the idea of a belief's truth value being reduced to its practical consequences. James gives several examples of how endless debates about a word's metaphysical meaning get us nowhere, and that we instead ought to look at the practical differences between opposing sides of any given debate.

Some examples:

Free Will vs Determinism
He mentions that when it comes to Free Will, many people claim to be concerned about merits and demerits in the criminal realm and how it will affect justice, but that this view is mistaken; people who do bad things will continue to be punished regardless of whether we believe they have agency or not. What really is at stake in the Free Will debate is whether we believe we have capacity to create novelty. If we are mere products of physical processes we don't have the capacity to change, whereas if we have volition, we do, and this is the only thing that matters in practical terms.

Spiritualism vs Materialism
He makes a similar case for the Spiritualism vs Materialism debate. He says that both theories are exactly the same in terms of what has already occurred. Whether or not there is matter and everything in the world is composed of it, is of secondary importance at best. What really is at stake, in terms of practical cash value, in this debate, is whether or not we believe our future holds a promise for moral order. If Spiritualism is true, then there will always be a moral order that is guarded by God, whereas if Materialism is true, our life is just a physical contingency devoid of ethics.

Setting aside the possibility that I could've misunderstood him in what he meant (if so please correct me), what would a Pragmatist say about Pro Life vs Pro Choice?