Pro choice and the innocence question

I have always been pro choice, not without some discomfort, but I tend to be pragmatic, and don't see trying to prevent abortions as probable for success and social harmony; it could be called the ostrich head in ground mentality, or something more ethically judgemental of me.

But I do wonder about the innocent war deaths comparison to that of fetuses/unborn children, the one which tries to show hypocrisy on the anti abortion side by the war advocation, even rationalization of hypothetical ones, of some of them, by saying innocent life is just that, innocent, so one can't be for wars or capital punishment but opposed to abortion without being a blatant hypocrite.

But is the shared moral basis the same despite the different contexts?

I would say no, but not by any presupposition of guilt of an individual, but because life is consequential, thus the act of continued existence means one must face such risks as death, not because it is just but because it is inherent. The unborn never has this opportunity, and cannot even be considered as part of any enemy group. Those who die in war may be innocent in most ways, but it is still possible for them to be in the way, their character not withstanding.

The appropriateness of war is certainly one of the greatest questions, but will answering it necessarily resolve the abortion and pro choice debate?

I doubt it.

Also, the consequence of the destruction of one life or potential one vs. another cannot be reasoned as the same in probable affect on global politics and national security, especially since abortions are generally not under circumstances of wars and the intents behind them.