The Smallest Minority expresses a point that I've found pro-choice people resistant to admit (and a professor of mine has had a paper arguing this rejected without possibility of resubmission from journal after journal, listing grounds related to minor points not central to the main issue). The point of his paper, which comes up in this post, is that even on the best pro-choice principles, once we reach certain technology the abortion question will be moot, since the pro-choice argument doesn't give anyone the right to the death of the fetus. The Smallest Minority goes a bit further. It's not just that this will happen. We should long for it to happen.
Presumably this is what John Kerry means when he says he believes abortion is wrong but a right. Pro-lifers are making a huge mistake when they say this is an inconsistent position. It's not. The problem with John Kerry and others who have said this sort of thing (Bill Clinton comes to mind) is that they've given us no reason to believe they really mean it. After all, what have they done to help make abortion rare? They've both opposed Congress's most recent attempts to make it rarer by limiting one completely unnecessary and even more violent than usual procedure. They don't actually say they want to make it rare, probably because it gets them off the hook for not doing anything to say you want to keep it rare but not change anything, but how can you keep something the way it isn't?
As for safe, I'm not sure how you can even think of an operation that always results in death as safe, but I won't pursue that one.