• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

If life begins at conception is that when USA citizenship begins?

  • Yes, anyone conceived in the USA is an American citizen

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • No, citizenship is an exception to life begins at conception

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • Total voters
    5
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.

Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
 
Last edited:
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.

Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
Click to expand...

Well, that is a "logical" progression to that line of thinking. If that human life starts there, as a fertilized egg...
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

You may notice that most prolifers avoid their own slogan's application IF they don't like the particular effect.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.

Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
Click to expand...

Learn the difference between citizenship and personhood.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Perhaps I can go through invitro- my doctor could harvest a dozen "people" and I could have an amazing tax deductions!
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

conception says nothing, only birth is deciding for citizenship.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Run away, prolifers, run!
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Paleocon said:
Learn the difference between citizenship and personhood.
Click to expand...


So you favor inferior "personhood" for fetuses, correct?
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
So you favor inferior "personhood" for fetuses, correct?
Click to expand...

No. They're just not citizens.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Paleocon said:
No. They're just not citizens.
Click to expand...

So you deny that an "unborn" child and a born child are not the same, and that "unborn" children are not entitled to the rights, protections and privileges of citizenship.

So far, not ONE prolifer is sticking to their ranting on other threads that there is no difference between a fetus and a born child. Specifically, they do NOT want a fetus to have ANY citizen rights like born children.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
So you deny that an "unborn" child and a born child are not the same, and that "unborn" children are not entitled to the rights, protections and privileges of citizenship.

So far, not ONE prolifer is sticking to their ranting on other threads that there is no difference between a fetus and a born child. Specifically, they do NOT want a fetus to have ANY citizen rights like born children.
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of citizenship?

To understand the answer is to understand why unborn children do not need citizenship.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.

Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
Click to expand...

granting person-hood at conception is quite frankly an insane idea that would instantly lead to all types of rights conflicts including making the pregnant woman a second class citizen.

"Citizenship" would just be one of MANY things that would be affected. It would be HUGELY hypocritical for one to support the insane idea of person hood at conception but not citizenship IF they already support that birth here is citizenship. Many people are against that policy.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Paleocon said:
What is the purpose of citizenship?

To understand the answer is to understand why unborn children do not need citizenship.
Click to expand...

It is very simple. To give "the unborn" the same rights as a born child, which most prolifers claim UNLESS that might affect them, not just the woman.

That virtually ALL prolifers will do a 180 degree shift to claim 1.) the unborn are the same as a born child but 2.) except for legal status and then the unborn are inferior.

This then raises an issue I've often raised. If the "unborn" are not citizens, what jurisdiction and venue does the government have over it/he/she?
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
The founding fathers in their writing claim that civil'human rights begin at birth. A person born in the USA also is automatically a citizen.

Many prolifers want to change this to "human life begins at conception" with full legal protection and rights as a born child. Accordingly then citizenship should convey "at conception," not at birth. Anyone in the USA as a tourist, on a VISA or illegally who "conceives" in the USA would have a American unborn child, correct?
Click to expand...

Where do any of the founding fathers claim that "civil human rights begin at birth"?
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
It is very simple. To give "the unborn" the same rights as a born child, which most prolifers claim UNLESS that might affect them, not just the woman.

That virtually ALL prolifers will do a 180 degree shift to claim 1.) the unborn are the same as a born child but 2.) except for legal status and then the unborn are inferior.
Click to expand...

What is the purpose of citizenship?

To understand the answer is to understand why unborn children do not need citizenship.

This then raises an issue I've often raised. If the "unborn" are not citizens, what jurisdiction and venue does the government have over it/he/she?
Click to expand...

Territorial. The government has jurisdiction over acts occurring in our territory.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

clownboy said:
Where do any of the founding fathers claim that "civil human rights begin at birth"?
Click to expand...

Born persons are citizens.


A fetus in not a PERSON under U.S. law.
Persons have rights under the Constitution, and it is clear that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments did not regard fetuses as persons.

In order to say that fetuses are persons under U.S. law, the Constitution would have to be amended to say so. Therefore the intentional killing of a fetus does not have same legal status as the killing of a person.
Click to expand...

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil 115/Roe_v_Wade.htm
 
Last edited:
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Its a moot point now that everyone is a citizen as long as they can get crossed the border without getting caught. But there is a distinction between person-hood and citizenship. Citizenship is specifically a birth right, as was pointed out. Person-hood and natural rights apply to all humans and have no relationship to citizenship or birth.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

ksu_aviator said:
Its a moot point now that everyone is a citizen as long as they can get crossed the border without getting caught. But there is a distinction between person-hood and citizenship. Citizenship is specifically a birth right, as was pointed out. Person-hood and natural rights apply to all humans and have no relationship to citizenship or birth.
Click to expand...

Person hood does not apply to the unborn in the US.
Person hood only applies to the born.
The Justices rejected the fetal right to argument in the Roe v Wade decision.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 ...
Click to expand...

Roe IX

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_f.htm
 
Last edited:
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Paleocon said:
What is the purpose of citizenship?

To understand the answer is to understand why unborn children do not need citizenship.

Territorial. The government has jurisdiction over acts occurring in our territory.
Click to expand...

Minimizing the hypocrisy between claiming there is no distinction as to right-to-life of a fetus and a born child is none-so-easy.

With the fetus a non-citizen, even if some members got their wish and a constitutional amendment or change in the Supreme Court's position for which abortion is defined as criminal murder (it is illegal to murder a non-citizen within the USA of course) - then all it means is the female would need to cross the border into Mexico, Canada, any other country or even go just a few miles offshore and out of the "territory" of the USA. for the abortion, which usually is a simplistic procedure. Or even just take a chemical abortion drug, taking it while NOT in the USA. Even if the fetus then aborted in the USA, the "killing" of the non-citizen did not occur within the USA.

While there can be basis to prosecute murdering an American in another country and certainly in International waters, there is no theory allowing prosecuting killing a non-American when not in American territory.

Thus, as I often point out, such laws really do NOT have the effect of outlawing abortions. Rather, only outlawing abortion to poor women. This also is why it is easy for many Republicans to support anti-abortion laws. They know they can afford to travel elsewhere - as was done in the past when abortions were illegal. Just take a trip to Canada.

If fetus are NOT citizens, there is no way to legally protect them from abortion except against poor women and very young girls unable to travel. Thus, it becomes the rich oppressing the poor, basically using them as breeding stock for cheap laborers to be raised by the poor to then service the wealthy.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

joko104 said:
Minimizing the hypocrisy between claiming there is no distinction as to right-to-life of a fetus and a born child is none-so-easy.

With the fetus a non-citizen, even if some members got their wish and a constitutional amendment or change in the Supreme Court's position for which abortion is defined as criminal murder (it is illegal to murder a non-citizen within the USA of course) - then all it means is the female would need to cross the border into Mexico, Canada, any other country or even go just a few miles offshore and out of the "territory" of the USA. for the abortion, which usually is a simplistic procedure. Or even just take a chemical abortion drug, taking it while NOT in the USA. Even if the fetus then aborted in the USA, the "killing" of the non-citizen did not occur within the USA.

While there can be basis to prosecute murdering an American in another country and certainly in International waters, there is no theory allowing prosecuting killing a non-American when not in American territory.

Thus, as I often point out, such laws really do NOT have the effect of outlawing abortions. Rather, only outlawing abortion to poor women. This also is why it is easy for many Republicans to support anti-abortion laws. They know they can afford to travel elsewhere - as was done in the past when abortions were illegal. Just take a trip to Canada.

If fetus are NOT citizens, there is no way to legally protect them from abortion except against poor women and very young girls unable to travel. Thus, it becomes the rich oppressing the poor, basically using them as breeding stock for cheap laborers to be raised by the poor to then service the wealthy.
Click to expand...

An American can be prosecuted by our government for committing murder abroad, so your argument does not hold.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

minnie616 said:
Person hood does not apply to the unborn in the US.
Person hood only applies to the born.
The Justices rejected the fetal right to argument in the Roe v Wade decision.



Roe IX

Roe v. Wade | Supreme Court Decision | Part IX-X
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that the SCOTUS has never over turned itself or that it is always right? We are a country of change. This to will change. It will return to what is right. History will show the pro-choice crowd to be a malicious group of baby killing sadists.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

Lursa said:
Well, that is a "logical" progression to that line of thinking. If that human life starts there, as a fertilized egg...
Click to expand...

I don't know about you but I'm getting tired of these anchor zygotes in this country
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

ksu_aviator said:
History will show the pro-choice crowd to be a malicious group of baby killing sadists.
Click to expand...
:roll:
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

ksu_aviator said:
Are you under the impression that the SCOTUS has never over turned itself or that it is always right? We are a country of change. This to will change. It will return to what is right. History will show the pro-choice crowd to be a malicious group of baby killing sadists.
Click to expand...

Gosh, it's hard to be wrong about something that always existed. Women have EQUAL protection under the law. A fetus does not. Women have the same rights as men to not be deprived by the State of life, liberty, and property "without due process of law". Right to privacy is not exclusive to men. It's inherent to the Constitution and without Right to Privacy the Constitution will collapse. Fetuses possess none of these rights.

A woman can't be discriminated against because she has a uterus instead of a penis.

I can go on for hours, but I'll leave reality dangling from this post.
 
re: If "conception" occurs in the USA, is that "person" is a USA citizen?[W191]

ksu_aviator said:
Are you under the impression that the SCOTUS has never over turned itself or that it is always right? We are a country of change. This to will change. ...
Click to expand...


I disagree that Roe will be overturned.
Most civilized countries allow elective abortions.


ETA

There were right to privacy precedents before Roe and other right to privacy cases since Roe.

Whenever there were precedents before an enacted SC decision it makes it that much harder to overturn since the precedents would also be overturned.

Here are a list of precedents for Roe v Wade.

Union Pacific R.Co. v. Botsford (1871): The Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.

The liberty to direct the education of one's children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters,(1925) 268 U.S. 510,

The right of procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942) 316 U.S. 535;

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): A right to privacy exists in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.

Loving v. Virginia (1967): Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972): The Court recognized the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom