We know that there are justices that oppose Rowe v Wade. We know that there are prestigious conservative legal organizations that oppose Rowe v Wade. We know that there are conservative politicians that embrace opposition to Rowe v Wade and make its repeals a major campaign issue.
Now - we know of no justices that think Obama is not eligible.
We know no such thing. We have no knowledge of what they are aware of regarding this issue, or what they think. You can surmise what they think in your opinion, but I doubt a single one of them is aware that Hawaii will issue birth certificates to the child of any Hawaiian resident, regardless of where born. I also don't think they've ever considered the possibility that Obama was adopted.
In your mind they may be deciding something after having considered all possible aspects of it, but in my mind, they have yet to even contemplate the subject.
We know of no prestigious conservative legal organizations that have publicly stated that Obama is not eligible.
As the media has done quite a good job mocking and maligning anyone who questions him, it is no surprise that the onslaught of propaganda has subdued some voices. However, there are conservative organizations that publicly state that Illegal immigrants are not entitled to U.S. Citizenship, and their arguments also apply to Obama. (whether they realize it or not.)
And in the middle of a presidential primary, there is not a single conservative politician willing to embrace birtherism.
After Hitler had spread his propaganda, who would claim to be a Jew? Or even defend them?
So your Rowe v Wade analogy does not hold water.
Oh, far better than you realize. You see, the Pro-life argument is the embodiment of the Jus Sanguinus (by the blood) argument, while the Pro-Choice argument is exactly equivalent to the "Jus Soli" (by the soil) argument.
The Pro-life argument is that life (citizenship) is inherent. The Pro-Abortion argument is that birth (on soil) is necessary. (to grant rights of personhood\citizenship)
If you believe that one only becomes a person at birth, the Jus Soli argument is for you. If on the other hand, you believe that a child inherits it's life and it's citizenship from it's parents at the moment of conception, the Jus Sanguinus argument is a better fit.
The Pro-life argument is that life (citizenship) is inherent. The Pro-Abortion argument is that birth (on soil) is necessary. (to grant rights of personhood\citizenship)
If you believe that one only becomes a person at birth, the Jus Soli argument is for you. If on the other hand, you believe that a child inherits it's life and it's citizenship from it's parents at the moment of conception, the Jus Sanguinus argument is a better fit.
I don't believe that I've ever seen this stated in such a manner. Scintillating!