I have been comparing and contrasting the 19th century arguments about slavery with our contemporary arguments about abortion. There are many similarities. For the advocates of both, they are absolutes. The slave owners and the abortionists will not accept any restrictions on their practice. Also, both slave owners and abortionists cannot morally defend their positions (abortionists tend to be atheists as well).
The biggest difference is the preemption of public policy debate by the Courts in the case of abortion, which is the biggest danger of judicial review/activism/supremacy. The debate over slavery was primarily conducted in Congress and in the public. Divisive, yes, but still a public debate. At least until Chief Justice Taney “settled” the issue in Dred Scott v. Sanford. In the case of abortion, the public debate never got very far before Justice Harry Blackmun inserted it into the Constitution, and limited the scope of the public debate, and shifted it to other grounds, such as composition of the Court. His decision, and that of the five justices who joined him, did more lasting damage to the Court as an institution by removing most of the judicial aspect of the Court, and making it just another political institution.
The Court is so far removed from this story Robert Bork told:
There is a story that two of the greatest figures in our law, Justice Holmes and Judge Learned Hand, had lunch together and afterward, as Holmes began to drive off in his carriage, Hand, in a sudden onset of enthusiasm, ran after him, crying, “Do justice, sir, do justice.” Holmes stopped the carriage and reproved Hand: “That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law.”