Well I'll be glad to tell you some of the reasons.
First it's a very, VERY thin slice of people general population wise that believe that a conception should have full personhood. They just see a clear difference between that super early stage of a couple of cells and even a fetus let alone a child.
So in this way your position defeats itself from a practical standpoint. If abortion would ever be made illegal than to be consistent all birth control methods that contaminate the womb and do not allow a fertilized egg (call it what you want) to implant hence aborting it would have to be made illegal. That's a complete nonstarter here in America my friend.
Then regardless of the reasons used in the Roe decision if the High Court would ever take the matter back up not only are they fighting their own precedent but also many different arguments could come into play from a Constitutional standpoint. What did the framers mean according to what they knew and believed at the time. The rule is what THEY knew and meant THEN not what we may or may not know now.
The Constitution in dealing with other rights clearly says... "All people born" as the standard. Add to that at the time of the Constitution that was the common belief... life started at birth. In fact even today in the Jewish faith their belief is life starts at "crowning" during child birth.
So it's obvious this is not something the High Court wants to or has to reopen.
But this is the real thing I don't understand from rabid Anti-Choice people. Do you not understand that all it would take is a simple majority vote of the people and the Constitution is amended with an absolute right to allow the current conditions under Roe... or even more?
And the votes are without any doubt fully available to do this. So to me it just makes more sense to leave Roe. and not push this to a Constitutional Amendment where it's outcome is seriously already known.
And to answer your South Dakota ruling question. Those rulings are fully capable of being overturned. These are LOWER court rulings. If they aren't overturned at some lower level The Supreme Court can act without even opening Roe back up. They can easily just say it violates their previous ruling.
They have very high latitude (basically unlimited latitude) to do whatever they want.
And like I said all you'd be doing anyway is setting in stone in our Constitution by Legislation the very thing you dislike.
You're endeavoring into a big waste of your time and energy my friend, that could be much better spent helping all the children that are unwanted & born and in desperate need of both financial support and homes.
Might want to consider it...
