You have argued that such laws against contraception were not in violation of American citizens natural rights and defended the laws against them.
Back to the OLD law dodge again? While attempting to maintain the fiction that you are not actually FOR the old laws against contraception even!
Previously laws against interracial marriage were not seen to be a violation of the natural rights of man - we as a Republic now have a new view of such laws and their impact upon the natural rights of man. You agreed that these laws were unjust and needed to be struck down.
As such it seems obvious that a law must stand or fall upon its own merits, not upon the idea that because it was done previously it should be A-OK going forward.
Nonsense, there is NOTHING to stop them from overturning Roe on the basis that the unborn were persons with rights.
The FACT that the opinion in Roe brings up this scenario makes it all the more likely.
You have argued that such laws against contraception were not in violation of American citizens natural rights and defended the laws against them.
Yes, but that IS NOT advocating bringing the laws back.
Back to the OLD law dodge again? While attempting to maintain the fiction that you are not actually FOR the old laws against contraception even!
Whatever.
Previously laws against interracial marriage were not seen to be a violation of the natural rights of man - we as a Republic now have a new view of such laws and their impact upon the natural rights of man. You agreed that these laws were unjust and needed to be struck down.
Do you have a point?
As such it seems obvious that a law must stand or fall upon its own merits, not upon the idea that because it was done previously it should be A-OK going forward.
Your previous arguments have been about limited government and natural rights (I would prefer to say God-given, but we'll use your term). Have the definitions of EITHER of these changed in the past two centuries?