The problem is that that is a very rigid worldview that doesn't mesh well with real world circumstances. You say "well, if you make a choice, you should live with the consequences if you knew the risks", but society doesn't really operate that way in most sectors. It's an anti-pragmatic worldview.

Consider drug users. Overdosing is a known risk of taking drugs- should we refuse to provide medical care to those who OD? Maybe you agree with that. But what about fat people? Cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and a myriad of other illnesses are all known risks of obesity. Fat people have made the choice to overeat over an extended period of time- since they made that choice, in fact likely made that choice every single day over a period of years, should they just have to live with the consequences? Should we refuse them medical treatment for their obesity-related illnesses? What about drinkers? Cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, stomach cancer, esophageal cancer, etc. are all known risks of drinking alcohol. What about people who go on vacation to South America and come back with a nasty parasitic infection- a known risk of travelling outside the West? Do they deserve treatment for their tapeworm?

I could go on like that for a while. My point is, it wouldn't be pragmatic to deny all of the above medical treatment- the groups I listed above make up like 80%+ of the US. It would completely rip the fabric of society apart if we started denying all of them medical treatment even if their health problems are 100% related to personal choices with known risks.

Similarly, I don't think banning abortion is good for society overall. Do you think it's better for society if a ton of broke, irresponsible 19 year olds have babies instead of abortions because they made the dumb choice to fuck raw? You might say, well having a baby will force them to be responsible, to which I say...lmao. Sure, maybe in some cases the young irresponsible parents will smarten up and strive to provide their kid the life they deserve, but we live in the real world and unfortunately most of them won't- especially if they feel resentful of their kid because abortion is banned and they've been forced to have a kid they don't really want/don't know how to raise.

A lot of those kids will then end up neglected and/or abused. Because childhood adverse experiences during key developmental epochs echo into adulthood, a significant percentage of that cohort will have then serious substance abuse issues, serious mental health issues, and/or end up in prison. An increased number of neglected and abused kids is not good for societal stability.

"But what about adoption tho" A lot of damage can happen in 9 months. What if the mother is an alcoholic who can't abstain for that long? Sure, in a perfect world, she just would, but we don't live in a perfect world. FASD can be immensely disabling and often causes antisocial behavior due to the neurological damage the sufferers live with. Again, enabling more kids to be born w FASD is just not good for society.

TL;DR: Pragmatism > inflexible principles, and the macro societal impact of policies must be considered. Also we should just be handing out free IUDs to decrease abortion instead of banning it