By this logic we're not supposed to defend anything because one day some people can (and I agree will) destroy it? Your argument argues for the opposite, it mak

By this logic we're not supposed to defend anything because one day some people can (and I agree will) destroy it? Your argument argues for the opposite, it makes more sense to defend this now when there is political capacity to defend it. And later when we won't, it'll be banned. But at least there will be political and legal precedent to this so that makes (1) harder for next person to destroy it (2) easier for the next next person to re-create it. Your strategy is by definition doomed to fail. EDIT: Also RvW was legally dependent on Americans' constitutional right to privacy as per the Fourteenth Amendment. So this issue is already organically tied to the issue of abortion, whether you like it or not (at least with the framework current SCOTUS is attempting to destroy (it cannot be said they already destroyed it fully given many of the precendents Thomas listed still are the law of the land)).