I don't think it was about the thrill of the legal arguments - though I do think it was a bad piece of law put together for the right reasons. The compassionate neutrality comes in with the idea that there are people who sincerely believe abortions are an act of violence against an innocent human soul. Those people I disagree with on their stance because I hold a different philosophical position - but I cannot prove their assertion is wrong and the moral arguments become very complex very quickly. We don't know what life is, let alone when we can define it. Here in the UK we've fudged ourselves into a compromise position - and it's one I'm (broadly) happy with.

The best I can do in those circumstances is maintain a neutral position. Both the pro-life and pro-choice people need to be listened to and the law needs to be applied fairly and in a way each group will stomach over a long period of time. I think Alito was wrong to overturn Roe and I think it was wrong to fall back on a whole bunch of archaic states laws, but I think it is temporary and better federal law will emerge with greater protections under a stronger mandate and this will likely come with better protections for women overall.

That isn't the thrill of semantic argument, it's attempting to create a situation where the rights of women cannot be overturned so simply by political skullduggery and ensure there are enough safeguards in place and the law is strong enough to withstand attacks from either side. Roe simply didn't do that. You may disagree and want it reinstated right away, but you also feel very strongly about it and the insistence on knee-jerk righting the wrongs of now might not be the same as righting the wrongs properly.