I *do* understand what you are saying, but I disagree with the way you translate theory into policy.
"I still think the best solution would be to overturn that joke of a ruling and then leave it up to a State by State vote so the people of each State, not their representatives, the actual people are forced to stand up and be counted, and decide to allow abortion in their State or not."
~ I think our debate began when you said that overturning Roe v. Wade was not important to you. Your statement of "the best solution" is obvious. That is what all of us who want to overturn the Roe-Doe-Stenberg-Casey series of decisions want. That is what reversing the precedent would do.
"It's people's hearts that have to be changed, not their actions. You can't change what someone does without changing their mindset that causes them to do it."
~ I of course want people to become truly pro-life, but simply illegalizing abortion would make it much more rare. I have known people who have little sense of personal morality, but feel it is wrong to violate the law, and avoid doing particular things for this reason alone. This combined with the fact that many secular Americans conflate law and morality would prevent many babies from dying.
"Simply removing the vehicle for them to do what they want doesn't fix them, they'll just find a different way of doing it, like back ally abortions or crossing borders to get them, etc so on."
~ This was not that common before Roe v Wade mandated abortion in all 50 states, so I don't know this would happen now. My experience with women considering abortion is that many of them feel they have no other options and that it is what they are expected to do. Where abortion is illegal, the "other options" are the only ones they will able to pursue, and they would not likely feel "expected" to do something that is against the law.
Law does affect culture. Race relations were altered significantly when segregation was made illegal. Hearts changed as a result when the two groups became acclimated to one another.
Regarding abortion, we have been changing hearts for decades, and most polls suggest we have public opinion on our side. This has done little to improve the legal situation, however, and more and more women are having repeat abortions, which keeps the number up. The hearts that cannot be changed by education or exposure to the Gospel may need to be prevented from action by law. It is worth a try. Having an ineffective law prohibiting abortion is better than having laws that encourage it. There is symbolic importance to the law- if laws meant nothing culturally, Lambda Legal would not have devoted itself to the repeal of unenforced sodomy laws.
I don't recall saying that Roe Vs. Wade was unimportant to me. I do not consider it to be the end all be all that would be the only thing to prove the success of the conservative agenda. It is bad judicial finding to the extreme and never should have happened, but there are things of greater import I think that need to be dealt with. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned it will NOT markedly reduce the number of abortions. Should it be overturned? Yes. It shouldn't have existed in the first place. Will it be overturned? I don't know. I just have a feeling it won't be. I don't know that anyone in the court wants to bring up that ruling again. It was a mistake to have it in the court in the first place. Maybe after stevens and ginsburg are gone it will be. At that time, if they're not replace with other flaming liberals like they are, then Roe vs. Wade is toast.