Dustin.This will get downvoted and I'll be called a bigot or some stupid thing because you didn't read the decision or my post or study law ever, but it's an objective reality and not an emotional wish list I'm discussing.
You're saying people are just copy/pasting from major media/politician and yet you do just the same "Roe was a bad legal argument" has been Fox' headline for the past week, so I would get off that high horse of yours.
Roe's argument was that a women's right to choose is an unenumerated right under the 14th amendment. You disagree with that, but there are other examples of unenumerated rights SCOTUS recognized and protected such as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to marital privacy, etc.
You want to go down the route of the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, that's fine, but it means all of those other unenumerated rights opinions are just as weak, according to your logic.
While the letter of the law leaves little room for interpretation, the spirit of the law (which SCOTUS is also responsible for considering when rendering opinions) is ultimately affected by personal, ideological, and political influences, that's why opinions are rarely unanimous. You state your opinion as an 'objective reality' that only an ignorant could possibly disagree with, I'd argue the 3 justices dissenting have probably read the opinions and studied law at least a little bit and yet they disagree with you too. They are not objective, and neither are you. SCOTUS votes are often party line votes for a reason.
My point is that the constitution was not meant to cover everything, and therefore it leaves a LOT open to interpretation. 1973 SCOTUS and 2022 SCOTUS can both be right, they just interpreted the constitution differently because of their respective biases.
I agree that it should be addressed once and for all through either an amendment or federal law, but I disagree that it 'won't happen'. 51% of people over 65 consider themselves 'pro life', 71% of people under 30 are 'pro choice' (and 60% 'pro choice' for 30-50yo). Might not happen right away, but it's really only a matter of time until it's either passed into amendment/federal law or reverted.
Even you and other conservatives in this thread agree with the big picture of the pro-choice movement: give women a reasonable time limit to make the choice to end a pregnancy if they want to. Late term abortions are an edge case (93% of abortions happen in the first trimester), and 'until birth' is also an extreme opinion that does not represent the 'pro choice' movement at large. Most of Europe is 12-14 weeks and I'm sure a majority of people would be fine with that, but it's easy to derail the debate and focus on what people disagree with instead of the common ground.
