And for those who thought that you couldn't possibly be wrong about everything you speak to, you have done it again. In the case of seatbelts, there is actually law that covers it. Written, debated, legislated and duely voted on law. Not to be confused with a court decision. I don't call names in lieu of argument topgun. I may goad you in the course of an argument, but don't resort to calling names because I am unable to rationally prove my point. Of course, I don't find myself unable to rationally prove my points, but that is a different argument. You keep saying that you have daughters. So what? I have a daughter also but she has nothing to do with the discussion, and neither do your daughters. The fact that you have daughters doesn't distract or change the fact that you can't defend your position, or defend the constitutionality of roe. You keep saying that but you can't defend it and to date, you have not expressed a single defense of it, much less "new" reasons to defend it. Simply stating that roe won does not constitute any sort of defense. When roe was decided, there were no people sitting in jail having been charged with manslaughter and murder for killing unborns. At that time, there was no precedent for the personhood of unborns. That is no longer true. And personhood isn't a thing that is granted which is one of the fatal flaws in the framework of roe. In the eyes of the law, the only requirement for being a person is that one be a human being. The words are interchangable.