A question for the group: Debatable or Self-Evident?

Resolved, any theory of constitutional interpretation that validates Roe v. Wade constitutes material cooperation with evil.

Please discuss.

Update: I'll offer a hypothetical: You're a constitutional law scholar. You develop a theory of constitutional interpretation, which argues that there are certain unenumerated rights protected by the 9th amendment and the P&I clause of the 14th amendment. Specifically, you believe that those provisions incorporate a strong libertarian form of the harm principle.

Your theory, you quickly conclude, would justify and support Justice Kennedy's decision in Lawrence.

Upon further reflection, you conclude that your theory of interpretation would also justify the result in Roe v. Wade. (Ditto Griswold.)

You did not develop the theory to explain/justify Roe, but you conclude that under your theory there is no way to avoid recognizing a right to abortion more or less on demand.

What are your moral obligations as a legal theorist? Is developing the theory and/or explaining why it supports Roe material cooperation with evil?