U.S. Citizenship, Our Constitution and When Life Begins: A Situation Republicans Can’t Answer

constitution_against_flagMany Republicans are often adamant about their beliefs that life begins at the moment of conception and we must have strict laws on immigration.

And for this argument, let’s just say that they’re absolutely right on both issues — life does begin at conception and we need to have much stricter laws when it comes to immigration and becoming an American citizen.

Giving them the victory on both of those arguments, I now present them with the following hypothetical situation:

A German citizen (male) and a Spanish citizen (female) meet during a layover in Japan — on their way to Los Angeles.  During their time in Los Angeles they go out a few times and end up having sex, which results in an unplanned pregnancy.

Nine months later she has the baby while visiting her parents, who now live in Italy.

Being that we’ve allowed Republicans the victory in defining life at the very moment of conception, and that we must have stricter guidelines on citizenship, I would love for them to answer the following question:

Should the baby be considered an American citizen?

If Republicans want to argue that life begins at conception — well, then this hypothetical life “began” on American soil when the woman became pregnant in Los Angeles.

Except it wasn’t born in the United States and neither parent is an American citizen.

Yet if life begins at conception, it was conceived on American soil.

But then, how could someone prove where conception happened?  Couldn’t every birth that occurs 9 months after a trip to the United States by foreign citizens then be put into question based on the parameters for which Republicans want to define life?

And then, if we recognize life beginning at conception, wouldn’t that encourage more “anchor babies” (as Republicans like to call them)?  Only this time, it’s with people rushing over here to become pregnant just to say their child was conceived on American soil — thus making it an American citizen.

Oh you know what, there’s really no need to present Republicans with these kinds of situations.

Our Constitution clearly defines citizenship.  In fact, it defines when life begins — at birth.

As our Fourteenth Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This clearly shows that our Constitution (you know that document Republicans claim they support) clearly defines life as beginning at birth by stating that citizenship for a fetus begins the moment it is born in the United States.

Let’s say a woman came over here on a temp work visa, then her boyfriend from Australia came for a visit, during which they had sex resulting in a pregnancy.  She proceeded to stay here just until birth, then went back home and gave birth.  Even though the child was conceived here and carried to term 98% of the time here — it would still not be an American citizen, because it was not born here nor did it have citizens as parents.

Even if a woman becomes pregnant here, carries the pregnancy 95% of the way on American soil, neither parents were citizens nor was the baby born on American soil.

All of this clearly shows that life, and citizenship, begins at birth — not conception.

So if these Republicans want to define life as beginning at conception, they then must define United States citizenship as anyone who was conceived on American soil.

So please, share this with a few Republicans you know and see if they can counter these points.  I’m willing to bet the responses will be nothing short of comical.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • melloe

    What is there to say, as the Republican won’t get it, and nothing gained

  • Jon Wright

    Also the Bible is clear when life begins–at the first breath! “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:7

    • Guest

      actually the bible states life stars at 1 moth after birth.

    • fester0420

      actually the bible states life stars at 1 month after birth

  • Donna Bergman

    I agree with Jon Wright. The Bible clearly state when life begins: at the first breath a baby takes after birth. Therefore, there should not be any controversy over exactly when life begins.

    • Shirl

      The Constitution and the Bible have weighed in on when life starts. What does Science have to say?

      • AntieQ

        Even science only claims that conception creates the potential for life and that the vast majority of conceptions, left alone, never make to birth.

      • kt500

        Making GOD an abortionist I guess!

      • Baaly

        If it is your believe that only god has the power to sanction life and death then, by default, yes.

      • bretttaylor

        i think science states life starts when the fetus can basically survive outside the womb, which is not 20 weeks.

        why do we continue to debate this argument. why can’t we let the abortion decision be left up to the woman and doctor. we do have limits when an abortion can happen. this is all about some’s whacky religious opinion and religion has NO FUCKING PLACE in our government.

    • Haley

      Please tell me where it says a child is not alive until it takes the first breath.

      • Baaly

        Genesis 2:7

  • Daniel Lovejoy

    Republicans consider facts to be all sciency and stuff, and they can’t pay attention to that because God trumps science.

    • Haley

      Republican is a political designation, not a religion. Many Christians are Democrats and many Republicans don’t attend church. Would you please clarify your above remark? Do you mean Christians can’t pay attention because God trumps science?

      • Daniel Lovejoy

        Most Republicans I know treat the political designation as a religion. I know republicans who are not religious, yet they repeat the religious talking points the party puts forth as the reason for their opinions.
        I know Democrats who are Christians, and they follow the Republican talking points in regards to God trumping science, but believe in helping their fellow man and don’t support the GOP line of putting corporations before Americans.
        Republican politicians ignore hard science because they are trying to appeal to a certain base voting population.

  • Chris

    I’m pro-choice and agree with the overall sentiment of the article, but the argument is fundamentally flawed. Allow me to play Devil’s advocate for a second.

    Mr. Clifton apparently assumes that being “born” and being “alive” are equal terms. I don’t think someone who is anti-choice would agree with that- you can be conceived and “alive”, yet still unborn.

    The 14th Amendment (and subsequent SCOTUS rulings, like US v. Wong Kim Ark) is pretty clear- you have to be *born* to receive US citizenship, not simply be conceived or alive.

    • dylan

      When someone dies on their tombstone are engraved the years of their life—meaning the years they were ALIVE. Being alive and being born ARE the same thing. If a person was conceived in November of 1990 and died in November 2050 they would not have been alive for 60 years, but 59, as the person wouldn’t be born and thus their life start until 1991.

      • Chris

        Like I said, I agree. But someone who is pro-life and argues life begins at conception- which is clearly prior to *birth*- would just say that “alive” and “born” aren’t the same thing. Which destroys the entire thesis here.

      • Ash Bowie

        Yes, but the real question here is not personal opinion, but law. If the Constitution defines life (i.e. personhood) and thus citizenship as beginning at birth, then it follows that laws related to abotion should be grounded in this fact.

    • Jim Olson

      It is your understanding of the article as written that is flawed. The author is clearly aware of the facts you point out.

    • Ash Bowie

      My take is that the point is not biological aliveness per se but personhood. A fetus is obviously made of living, developing tissue, but isn’t accorded citizenship because it isn’t yet a living person. As such, the basic premise of the article’s essay is sound.

  • Mike

    This sort of extreme argument is as bad as those on the other side. They don’t recognize the difference between a newly conceived fetus, with little development, and the writer certainly does not recognize the scientific fact that at some point, a fetus can feel, and live, even if born quite early. When does “life” begin? Of course that late term aborted fetus is life. To say otherwise is irrational. Or at first breath? Why not abortions with a bag over the child’s head at birth? No breath, no life. This is as crazy as those who think more guns will solve the violence problem. The end goal of the writer gets in the way of reason. Shameful.

    • gatorfan

      Mike, you misunderstand the point of the articlr. The writer is simply try to show the ridiculousness of the right’s argument by taking the extreme opposite opinion. Yes, its not the best sort of argument to make (for those of us who learned about logic and valid argumentative reasoning on the debate club team and inlaw school) but it does make a neat little visceral impact to show how stupid the right are. Of course a fetus is considered alive when its viabke and csn survive outside the womb.

  • Schuyler Thorpe

    I think this would be too much to bear for them.

  • Charles Vincent

    “Yet if life begins at conception, it was conceived on American soil.”
    This is a bad argument you could apply this to any cut off date, i.e. 24weeks, 30weeks etcetera.
    SCOTUS talked about viability and put the number at 24 weeks. From what I understand “viability” hinges on how the fetus is able to survive outside the womb and grow like a natural born baby.
    Another, and I think more relevant argument would be to argue that if a person assaults a pregnant woman regardless of how far along in the pregnancy she is if she loses the baby it’s a murder charge so one has to ask how can it be murder if at what ever point this occurred, then why wouldn’t an abortion be considered murder?

    • Ash Bowie

      The argument is sound:

      IF life/personhood begins at conception, and
      IF citizenship is granted to those who begin life on US soil,
      THEN citizenship should be granted to those who are conceived on US soil regardless of where they are later born.

      The rest of your points are irrelevant to the argument in the essay.

      • Charles Vincent

        Here is the law I was referencing in my other post.
        “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.[1]
        The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
        The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
        Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 36 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]”

        Clearly this law says life begins at conception, as you cannot murder/kill something that isn’t alive. All my points were tied to this and as such are relevant to this article.

      • Ash Bowie

        That law is irrelevant to the central argument being made. Do you or do you not support granting citizenship based on place of conception regardless of place of birth?

      • Charles Vincent

        He is veiling the concept of life here and according to a different article he wrote he used this same scenario to couch when life begins as it applied to abortion. As far as citizenship the scotus has made several rulings on this topic the most well known being the Dred Scott case.
        A list can be found here;
        http://tesibria dot typepad dot com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

        Apart from these it is my opinion that if a non citizen is here legal by what ever means i.e. a green card, work visa, or attempt ion to become naturalized and has a baby on us soil that child has a claim to citizenship this is how it happened during the melting pot era.

      • Ash Bowie

        Don’t lose sight of the point of the article: that the forced-birth movement is inherently incoherent. One cannot both insist that personhood begins at conception while also insisting that citizenship is dependent on birth.

      • Charles Vincent

        Mr. Clifton often does this. I do not wish my opinion on what constitutes citizen ship to be used as an opinion on when life begins in another article he paired life and when it begins as being birth. And has tied these two things together on several occasions, it is this pairing I was trying to avoid, and clarify with my previous posts as this article and his others on this topic relation to life and abortion are all tied together with the life at birth argument he is bringing here and in the other articles he has written. Does this make more sense in that context?

      • Ash Bowie

        I understand that you want to avoid mixing discussions of personhood and citizenship because from the anti-choice position, they are incompatible. Another way of articulating the issue is this: if indeed personhood begins at conception, then that would result in a great many consequences, both legal and ethical, that would go counter to many common social norms (such as citizenship).

        Here is another example: if conception=personhood, then the huge percentage of pregnancies that end in natural miscarriages should be seen as a major health crisis on par with AIDS or even the Black Plague. Pro-life groups should be calling for a massive effort to address this catastrophy…many millions of people might be saved from the tragic death of miscarriage. But we don’t do that because common sense tells us that, however sad a miscarriage might be, it isn’t the same thing as diseases that kill infants. It isn’t the same thing because infants are people and a fetus isn’t.

      • Charles Vincent

        Miscarriage and abortion are separate issues in my opinion, as is citizenship as the arguments for each are fundamentally different.
        Citizenship is a product of birth in a geographic region.
        Miscarriage is something that is accidental in most cases.
        Abortion is a choice to terminate a pregnancy based on individual criteria. Addressing what constitutes life really only effects this not the other two.
        In my opinion when a pregnancy has developed to the point where the baby has a circulatory system and heart beat, an autonomic system and moves and reacts to outside stimulus and can dream this is the point where it is a life and should have all the protections and rights as any person. I believe that this is the point of viability that the Supreme Court was talking about in the roe v wade case.

      • Ash Bowie

        “Miscarriage and abortion are separate issues”…they are separate events, but they still relate the fundamental question of personhood. If a zygote is a person, then a miscarriage is a tragedy that medical science should address with all available resources. If it not a person, then a miscarriage is, at worst, a sad but natural event. Likewise, if a zygote is a person, then every miscarriage should be followed by a funeral. The same logic can be applied to abortion, citizenship, etc.

        “In my opinion when a pregnancy has developed to the point where the baby has a circulatory system…”
        You are free to make that determination for yourself. But your’s is not an obvious or necessary threshhold for personhood. But let’s say you are right (or that everyone agrees with it)…would you then support that citizenship be granted at that stage of pregnancy regardless of place of birth? After all, according to your logic, the fact that the fetus is inside a womb is irrelevant in regards to its independent personhood.

      • Charles Vincent

        it is my opinion. The miscarriage assertion is a deep rabbit hole but it doesn’t equate to abortion as it is an accident albeit a tragic one. The need for a funeral is ancillary to this and reliant upon an individuals personal choice to do so.
        Citizenship requires one to be born irregardless of when one states life begins.
        Abortion is a conscious choice the mother makes this isn’t an accident. The question of life and when it begins is a core argument in the abortion debate this isn’t the case with either miscarriages or citizenship.

      • Ash Bowie

        “The miscarriage assertion is a deep rabbit hole but it doesn’t equate to abortion…” Arg! Of course miscarriage doesn’t equate with an abortion…but how they are both understood and responded to depend on the question of personhood. The point I’m trying to make is that our society’s response to miscarriage is indiciative of the common sense understanding that a zygote/fetus isn’t a person…if the opposite were true, our response to miscarriages would be very different. It is just another example of the inherent contradiction of the pro-life position.

        “Citizenship requires one to be born irregardless of when one states life begins.” This is contradictory, which is the entire point of all this.

        “The question of life and when it begins is a core argument in the abortion debate this isn’t the case with either miscarriages or citizenship.”

        I understand that you need to tell youself that. But as I’ve demonstrated, the question of personhood is entirely and inescapably relevant to the issues of citizenship and miscarriages.

      • Charles Vincent

        Lets take these issues one at a time. First t lets address miscarriages.
        A miscarriage happens due to some physical or in some cases emotional stress on a person for instance the mother may have some sort of a intra uterine cyst or something similar that causes a miscarriage. There are also emotional stressors that have caused miscarriages. And lastly there are external sources such as a pregnant woman slipping and falling that results in a miscarriage. These are all involuntary occurrences i.e. the. Mother does not want this to happen. And from personal experience I can tell you that whether or not the baby is a few weeks along( a zygote by definition) or 28 weeks along( a fetus by definition) the mental and emotional trauma is the same as losing a child that’s already born. The fundamental difference here is it’s a tragedy on the same scale as any other accident the damages a person. People aren’t up in Arms over it because its an accident where as abortions are intentional.

      • Ash Bowie

        You are still avoiding the issue I’m addressing. There are nearly a million miscarriages a year in the US alone. By comparison, about 1,500 children die of cancer a year in the US (the second biggest killer after accidents). A miscarriage and cancer share the fact that they are “accidents” as you put it…i.e. they are natural events. And yet, there are numerous organizations, research centers, and hospital wings backed by many millions of dollars and volunteers, all devoted to preventing those 1,500 deaths.

        Now then, if a zygote is a person every bit as much as a born child, then those 1,000,000 child deaths should certainly encourage at least as much effort, if not much more, to substantially reduce those numbers. Where are the huge medical programs and volunteer organizations devoted to preventing those 1,000,000 deaths each and every year? And why isn’t the pro-life movement leading this charge? I guarantee that if a new disease started killing off a million US children every year, there would be a gigantic mobilization to fight it.

        The answer is simple: because it is intuitively obvious that a zygote isn’t a person in the same sense that an infant is a person. In existential terms, there is no difference between a zygote that is aborted and a zygote that is miscarried; no person has died in either case. As such, intentionality is entirely besides the point and irrelevant…until it is understood that the right-to-life movement is ultimately about controlling and punishing women. If it really was about a living person in that womb, then there would be a huge anti-miscarriage effort, citizenship would be granted prior to birth, and pro-lifers would be pushing laws to give expecting mothers an optimal level of financial and medical care to insure a safe and healthy pregnancy. It’s all connected, and that is why the pro-life movement is fundamentally incoherent.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Now then, if a zygote is a person every bit as much as a born child, then those 1,000,000 child deaths should certainly encourage at least as much effort, if not much more, to substantially reduce those numbers. Where are the huge medical programs and volunteer organizations devoted to preventing those 1,000,000 deaths each and every year? And why isn’t the pro-life movement leading this charge? I guarantee that if a new disease started killing off a million US children every year, there would be a gigantic mobilization to fight it.”
        On the contrary there is plenty of research that hase been done on miscarriage and many articles and medical reports on the topic. Here is one verbatim on what causes them and how to identify the symptoms and things that can be done to prevent them.

      • Ash Bowie

        Yes, of course there is miscarriage research. Medical scientists are certainly interested in reducing the number of miscarriages. But there are no miscarriage five-mile runs, no miscarriage foundations, no miscarriage university departments or hospital wings, and no major miscarriage volunteer or charity organizations. In other words, there is no anti-miscarriage effort that comes close to that of the fight against cancer despite the fact that there are about 667 times more miscarriage “deaths”. Moreover, the point is that the pro-life movement is not doing anything about it…although, as defenders of the unborn, they should be leading the charge. Pro-lifers should be outraged that the government is doing next to nothing about the miscarriage epidemic. C’mon, almost a million children a year are dying in the US alone!

        But as we both know, they aren’t actually children. They are only potential children, which is why we don’t have funerals for miscarried zygotes…we reserve funerals for people. It isn’t an epidemic because zygotes aren’t people. If they were, then I’d be standing right beside the pro-lifers in calling for every effort to “Find the Cure!”

      • Charles Vincent

        This is a fallacy as your contention that there are no foundations or charity runs for miscarriages like there are for cancer victims that it isn’t a valid problem or nullifies the debate, and is totally absurd.

        “which is why we don’t have funerals for miscarried zygotes…we reserve funerals for people.”
        This is also a fallacy families do have funerals and memorial services for the loss of a pregnancy due to miscarriage.

      • Charles Vincent

        Miscarriage Statistics

        Sadly, miscarriages are a very common occurrence. Sources vary, but many estimate that approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; and some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.

        Although statistics can vary slightly from one source to the next, here is a general account (based primarily on information provided by the March of Dimes) of the frequency of miscarriages in the United States:

        There are about 4.4 million confirmed pregnancies in the U.S. every year.

        900,000 to 1 million of those end in pregnancy losses EVERY year.

        More than 500,000 pregnancies each year end in miscarriage (occurring during the first 20 weeks).

        Approximately 26,000 end in stillbirth (considered stillbirth after 20 weeks)

        Approximately 19,000 end in infant death during the first month.

        Approximately 39,000 end in infant death during the first year.

        Approximately 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage; some estimates are as high as 1 in 3. If you include loss that occurs before a positive pregnancy test, some estimate that 40% of all conceptions result in loss.

        Approximately 75% of all miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

        An estimated 80% of all miscarriages are single miscarriages. The vast majority of women suffering one miscarriage can expect to have a normal pregnancy next time.

        An estimated 19% of the adult population has experienced the death of a child (this includes miscarriages through adult-aged children).

      • Charles Vincent

        http://ezinearticles dot com/?What-Are-the-Main-Causes-of-Miscarriage,-and-How-Can-They-Be-Avoided?&id=5157007
        Here is the article I was referring to in my other post

      • Charles Vincent

        “In existential terms, there is no difference between a zygote that is aborted and a zygote that is miscarried; no person has died in either case.”
        If this were the case we wouldn’t have this; “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.

      • Charles Vincent

        “If it really was about a living person in that womb, then there would be a huge anti-miscarriage effort,” This is a straw-man argument. Miscarriages are an accident. Abortions are on purpose and by choice.

        “right-to-life movement is ultimately about controlling and punishing women.”
        This is a fallacy as the Roe v Wade decision stated this;
        “The Court asserted that the government had two competing interests – protecting the mother’s health and protecting the “potentiality of human life”. Following its earlier logic, the Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health. The Court additionally added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician’s right to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women’s rights in general.”
        The court needs to revisit this and clarify where viability is. Pro life nor pro choice people will get what they want and most likely the decision should SCOTUS revisit and define viability it will be some place in the middle they discussed 22-28 weeks originally.

      • Ash Bowie

        I get that I’m revealing a fundamental hypocrisy in the pro-life argument and that this is uncomfortable for you. I get that to defend against that, you are countering with irrelevancies or inaccuracies. I also get that you are, at this time, incapable of acknowledging even straightforward facts, like the uncontroversial claim that there is no massive anti-miscarriage effort and that such an effort should be spearheaded by a movement dedicated to protecting the life of unborn persons. Without an ability to acknowledge such basic facts, further conversation will be unproductive. But that said, I want to thank you for remaining civil and keeping your comments on topic.

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually I think both side have both flaws and hypocrisy when it comes to this subject. I just happen to think they will both be disappointed in the event the Supreme Court decides to address the issue. You’re welcome, I actually despise people that hurl insults and resort to ad hominem attacks instead of actual debate.

      • Charles Vincent

        This reply will deal with citizenship. Citizenship doesn’t care about when life begins and here’s why the obvious is the SCOTUS ruling that to be a citizen you much be born in the US. The other is that say for instance a father and mother (both US citizens for simplified reasons) have a baby the baby lives for an hour and dies by definition the baby is a citizen no one would dispute this. Now take the same scenario but this time the baby is stillborn is the baby any less of a citizen because he/she was stillborn, probably not i can find no case law that would say he/she isn’t a citizen in either case because whether or not the baby lives isn’t the issue that isn’t what citizenship is trying to determine. The test of citizenship is trying to determine if a child is born in a geographic area( the US in this case) therefore the concept of when life begins is irrelevant to the test of citizenship.

      • Charles Vincent

        This reply will deal with abortion. The line at which we draw that divide when a fetus is a life and when it is not is the central argument in the on going abortion debate and has a massive implication on the subject of abortion.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Likewise, if a zygote is a person, then every miscarriage should be followed by a funeral.”
        This is a straw an argument and is irrelevant to the discussion. The fact is women do have funerals and memorial services for babies that were miscarried.

        “If a zygote is a person, then a miscarriage is a tragedy that medical science should address with all available resources.”
        Are you suggesting that a miscarriage isn’t a tragedy un less we call a zygote a person?

  • Haley

    Wow a new level of arrogance. So now American citizenship is synonymous with life?!? There are so many holes in your argument (if you can call it that) I don’t even know where to begin.
    Why is it the Democrats’ main platform to make excuses/reason/justifications for sucking babies out of their mother’s uterus just because she doesn’t feel like being a mother? Guess what, people out there are practically submitting to bodily torture to be able to have kids (IVF, etc). No one’s forcing you to keep a child you don’t want. You think giving a kid up for adoption is any worse than putting your grandmother in a nursing home? There are waiting lists to adopt babies. It’s older kids that are sitting in foster home – not babies (with few exceptions). Tell someone you’re for euthanizing the el-derly if they have no family who wants to take them in and care for them for 18-25 years.

    • Jim Olson

      The reason why you don’t know where to begin is that you don’t have a rational counter argument to begin with. You might start be pointing out the first hole in the argument, then going on to the next hole and so forth. you may start any time.

    • Ash Bowie

      Haley, your argument makes sense…if one stipulates that personhood starts at conception. But if one argues that it starts either at viability (as supported by science) or at birth (as supported by the Bible and the Constitution), then ending a pregnancy is not an unethical act (and in fact can be a highly ethical act depending on the circumstances). Clearly you believe the former…does that mean you support changing the Constution to grant citizenship based on place of conception and not birth?

  • dgbogner

    Then the point is not when a fetus becomes a person, but when a person becomes a legal citizen. When a fetus becomes a living soul is a religious matter. When a child becomes a citizen is the only thing government should be interested in. So abortion is a moral crime, but not a civil one. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t think the government should be involved with a religious question.

    • Ash Bowie

      While I disagree with your belief, I think yours is the most reasonable position from a religious perspective. I wish more Christians would adopt it.

  • rich

    who cares what the bible says, you people with your effing bibles are the problem with this country

  • rich

    religion and greed are the problem. Until we stop allowing the regulated to become regulators and vice versa, stop with all the religious BS and take corporate influence out of our government along with religion influence we are all screwed. that is except for the wealthiest among us.