Alright, fair enough. So it's about slamming your car into trees for art. Still, I think the point is that liking airbags doesn't entail liking smashing your car into trees for art.
Now, you might say - "yeah, but if abortion is legal, then you may think she's doing something wrong (or would be, if any of this were true), but you'd be powerless to forbid her from doing it." That may be true, but that's a different thing. Laws protecting free speech limit my power to stop people from saying hateful things. It happens.
Of course, that doesn't mean we need to be complacent about these things. Part of the basis for most pro-choicers' view is that the better place to address the question of abortion is in the doctor's office than the legislature. The "herbal remedy" part of the story is pretty key - real abortifacients (but not "morning after" pills) are administered under medical supervision, and any adequate doctor would be asking hard questions of a woman who was having repeated abortions in quick succession - if s/he weren't, at the very least it'd be a professional ethics violation, and possibly malpractice (since abortions are invasive and non-risk-free procedures). I'd also argue that comprehensive sex ed is a necessary support to women's ability to make good choices about things like contraception, abortion, etc. - educating people about the consequences of their actions is often a much more effective way of changing their behavior than laying on prohibitions.
On the technical side, RU-486 is approved in the US (I believe in 2000). Taking it is, at best, the sort of experience it sounds like I'd prefer not to have. And yes, there are some serious associated risks, mostly of bleeding (and I believe *some* fatalities). Again, not great, but there are lots of medical procedures that carry risks - most of the time, we deal with those by requiring doctors to inform patients of the risks and options. There are other procedures and drugs that carry risks.
no subject
Now, you might say - "yeah, but if abortion is legal, then you may think she's doing something wrong (or would be, if any of this were true), but you'd be powerless to forbid her from doing it." That may be true, but that's a different thing. Laws protecting free speech limit my power to stop people from saying hateful things. It happens.
Of course, that doesn't mean we need to be complacent about these things. Part of the basis for most pro-choicers' view is that the better place to address the question of abortion is in the doctor's office than the legislature. The "herbal remedy" part of the story is pretty key - real abortifacients (but not "morning after" pills) are administered under medical supervision, and any adequate doctor would be asking hard questions of a woman who was having repeated abortions in quick succession - if s/he weren't, at the very least it'd be a professional ethics violation, and possibly malpractice (since abortions are invasive and non-risk-free procedures). I'd also argue that comprehensive sex ed is a necessary support to women's ability to make good choices about things like contraception, abortion, etc. - educating people about the consequences of their actions is often a much more effective way of changing their behavior than laying on prohibitions.
On the technical side, RU-486 is approved in the US (I believe in 2000). Taking it is, at best, the sort of experience it sounds like I'd prefer not to have. And yes, there are some serious associated risks, mostly of bleeding (and I believe *some* fatalities). Again, not great, but there are lots of medical procedures that carry risks - most of the time, we deal with those by requiring doctors to inform patients of the risks and options. There are other procedures and drugs that carry risks.