Is RU486 more dangerous than pregnancy?

This seems to be the question noone's asking. It would clarify the matter suposedly under consideration in the Aussie parliament at the moment. Tony Abbot's claim that he will be objective [about whether the drug is safe to be prescribed] is hollow; the Theaputic Goods Administration is clearly the best route to objectivity.

It's turning into the usual pro-death vs pro-populate-my-religion-with-as-many-offspring-as-possible slanging match. I think women would like a realistic estimate of the risks of using the drug... and the test that should satisy the usual do-no-harm test of medicine is stated above.

But if you believe that the health of the foetus is of equal value to that of the pregnant woman, then we're at an impasse.