> a thought experiment by an influential philosopher

Plus, this particular philosopher would very likely display a lot of intolerance against those proposing its usage so generously. And he would bite himself in the arse for even stating it because of course people misunderstand the meaning.

True, but every system needs some exception handling. The US Constitution is a long-running system but contains several broad exceptions relating to war because that's an existential problem.

For what is worth, I think you are making a correct observation.

Another correct observation would be this. Aimed at the people saying this is breaking with precedent and it’s settled law that shouldn’t be changed.

The prohibition, which was written into the constitution, was repealed.

Nothing is set in stone.

What’s intolerable is being against abortions while simulatenously making use of that service. There's something just too hypocritical about being against medical procedures while personally benefiting from them, be it anti-vaxxers who are fully vaccinated, or anti-abortion activists who want to prevent others from having access to abortions while quietly going a state over and having one for themselves or their wife/girlfriend/mistress/daughter. If you're against something, fine, but practice what you preach. This is especially true for those preaching very loudly.