I honestly can't work out where I stand on this one. Part of me thinks to be pro-choice means accepting all the reasons why women decide to have a termination. After all, what is a valid reason to one woman is not a valid reason to another.
I have had a termination mostly due to the fear of a second HG pregnancy - yet plenty of women have HG worse than I did, and willingly have more pregnancies. They would undoubtedly not agree with me. My termination was also to do with just not feeling ready to cope with another child yet, fear of how work and childcare and finances would suffer - yet within circumstances where thousands of other women would place the unborn child above their needs for a career, or more income into their family.
So one women's valid reasons are another women's idea of doing a terrible thing, even if they are pro-choice. I do suspect that many women are pro-choice but only in certain specific situations, and would see reasons like 'just not ready' from a 30-something woman as not valid.
Yet I also feel that in the majority of cases terminations should occur early, as it is 'easier' and less distressing for everyone involved, and assuming a woman discovers the pregnancy at 6-8w, even with a few weeks to make up her mind, a termination can still be achieved early on in the pregnancy. Barring not discovering the pregnancy until very late, or health issues (physical or mental, and for mother or baby) arising as the pregnancy continues, a large part of me feels very uncomfortable with late abortions.
The reasons why JC has suggested she would terminate sit very ill with me, personally.
But if you start negotiating on the reasons for a termination at any stage under the legal limit, where does it stop? It's a slippery slope from what JC is suggesting down to saying 'nope, sorry, your reasons just aren't good enough for me.'