Replies

Overturned means just that. If the SCOTUS heard a case that challenged Roe v Wade, their decision would be limited to overturning Roe v Wade, not in making new law.

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?

My point followed directly, my point was that a law must stand or fall upon its own merits rather than ‘if it was OK in the past, it should be OK going forward’ as was OBVIOUSLY not the case with laws against interracial marriage.

Natural rights are God given.

The definitions of limited government and natural rights have not changed. Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed, in a system that was designed to acknowledge those rights, as well as to Constitutionally accommodate change, and to hash out what the proper role is of a limited government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man.

But good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in the bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation, and that the regulation would not at all be a violation of their natural rights, and that such regulation is compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers.

So if you don't see laws against contraception as a violation of natural rights, and as compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers. WHY oh WHY are you not actually for passing such laws again?

Pragmatism? Practicality? Realism?