I wasn't suggesting you agree with Dobbs because you disagree with Roe. I know your stance on abortion.

Fact is, not being a lawyer myself and, frankly, only having what I consider to be a passing familiarity with the legal trade (which STILL puts me ahead of many or most people, it seems) I find it difficult to articulate why I find the argument a bad one.

But, I can say that it's an over focus on, as you say, legal niceties. The law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's tied to govt and acceptance as a rule by the populace. It seems like Brits making this argument are doing so from a British legal perspective that tends to that our confederation of states, which is what the US is, operates differently governmentally in some fundamental ways in how the legal code can live and breathe than the confederstion of nations, which the UK is.

And in that, you're missing something vital. Roe couldn't have been legislation. It had to be a court interpretation of privacy rights. It was the only way.

It's unlikely, at this point, now that it's been returned to the states, that there will ever be cohesion amongst the states again. And you cannot have different rights of personhood across state lines and maintain unity as a nation.

We've been down that road before. We all know what happened shortly after the Dredd Scott decision.

What is happening in red states was always going to happen if Roe fell. It was always obvious. And so is what comes next.

There is a very narrow path through. I don't think it's very likely though. Time will tell.