Why the fate of "Roe" is not the most important milestone: The more meaningful victory is not about law

I have mentioned previously that my brother and I grew up as unwanted children, born in a pre-Roe-v-Wade era. Before Roe, each state had its own laws governing when a developing human life was recognized as legally human and therefore worthy of legal protection. The Supreme Court has returned that decision to the states once again, and each state is in a position to consider or reconsider its own laws. The laws will likely range the whole spectrum -- protected from conception, or from the detection of the child's heartbeat, or from quickening, or from the age of viability, or from birth. (From time to time, a handful of people have advocated for "from some days after birth", though that has not gained serious traction at this point). There may even be room to build consensus around heartbeat laws, quickening laws, or viability laws.

I have seen celebration among those who believe a developing human life is worthy of legal protection. I find myself unable to join the celebration just yet because of this: Those who argue that an unwanted child's life can be miserable -- they aren't wrong. Over the upcoming years, I would expect to see many state legislatures take up the question of what laws are good and right. Even when the law protects the child from a reasonably early age (for example, heartbeat laws), the law does nothing to promote good parenting. Neither is it the law's place to promote good parenting; that's a question of culture rather than law.

For those who have prayed for the day when human life is better protected, I think we do those lives a disservice by focusing only on the legality or illegality of abortion. Until it becomes normal to expect mothers to love their children, until it becomes normal to expect fathers to stand by their children and the mother -- until that happens, protecting the child from abortion is an incomplete victory.