But isn't Roe weak because of the fundamental irresolvability of questions like when a fetus becomes a person, and thus Roe existed to leave room for political

But isn't Roe weak because of the fundamental irresolvability of questions like when a fetus becomes a person, and thus Roe existed to leave room for political compromise. And even if it's a bad, constitutionally defective law, isn't overturning it 50 years later only causes harm and more polarization, kicking democracy further down the drain? Actively playing favorites with a religion is not religious pluralism. Besides reality-wise how would all the fundamentalist stance about what America founded on, and how this and that should be interpreted based on that is useful if the country can't serve it's people. Nobody back then really thought that the country should not adapt to thrive.