IMHO, it is a stronger case than relying on the "inalienable rights" clause of the Declaration of Independence - simply because the Supreme Court (and all who take the oath of office) are sworn to defend the Constitution.
Since abortion (ala right to privacy) became a "right" by judicial activism, it seems to me the Supreme Court must lay that decision aside. And to do that, they need a foundation argument in the Constitution, i.e. the Preamble.
I pray that all of the conservative justices will enjoy good health during this administration and that the liberal justices will have a change of heart.
Ping to 96 per your request.
I reject the one argument I've heard against it, that the word "posterity" is intended as an amorphous literary convention, and not as a specific attempt to address progeny.
It seems to me that argument would only hold weight IF the authors of the Constitution believed the Republic would quickly fail. If they did not, and truly hoped not, then they would have specifically desired to secure blessings that had substance for the very real posterity who would succeed them and their generation.
Blackmun bought the argument that unborn babies are not persons; however, there is NOTHING to stop a future Court decision from reversing this.
The reality is that there have been incredible advances in pre-natal medicine and the care of premature babies. The definition of a "viable" fetus is completely different than it was in 1973 and there is every reason to believe that there will be even more advances in the years to come.