If life begins at conception, why doesn’t citizenship in the US begin at conception?

[Archivist]

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” So, if life begins at conception, why doesn’t citizenship begin at conception?

 

[HTacianas]

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” So, if life begins at conception, why doesn’t citizenship begin at conception?

In some narrow cases it does. A court in the State a child is conceived in can have jurisdiction over support for the child even if the parents no longer reside in that State.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” So, if life begins at conception, why doesn’t citizenship begin at conception?

Because babies sometimes die before they're born. What good does citizenship do to a person who isn't able to benefit from it?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Because babies sometimes die before they're born. What good does citizenship do to a person who isn't able to benefit from it?

The advantage the poster is considering for the baby by being considered a citizen at conception is that no one would have the right to kill it before it was born. The problem with the argument the OP is proposing does not are rise form the fact babies die before they are born it arises from the fact that we cannot legally murder non citizens any more than we can legally murder citizens. Therefore it is not a lack of citizenship that is the basis for abortion being legal.

 

[dzheremi]

Has birthright citizenship been abolished recently?

As far as I know we still have that, even though President Trump has talked about ending it somehow.

 

[paul1149]

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” So, if life begins at conception, why doesn’t citizenship begin at conception?

Because it's hard to prove time and place of conception. Anyone can say "we conceived this baby in the USA; he is an American citizen". It takes birth records to prove an actual birth. Without the paper trail citizenship would become practically meaningless.

But that doesn't mean that the unborn has no human rights - at least, it did not until the Democrats' most recent push to dehumanize the fetus. A human life in utero was always protected by law against harm, such as injury or death during the commission of a crime. But starting with New York last January, that protection was explicitly taken away, and unless that travesty has since been corrected, there remains no legal protection for the unborn in that state. Since then, several other Democrat-run states, like Virginia, Illinois, and New Mexico, have moved to follow NY's lead.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, abortion was not legally acceptable anywhere. The fact that the Framers wrote their document with no explicit mention of the unborn is not a statement against his humanness.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The advantage the poster is considering for the baby by being considered a citizen at conception is that no one would have the right to kill it before it was born. The problem with the argument the OP is proposing does not are rise form the fact babies die before they are born it arises from the fact that we cannot legally murder non citizens any more than we can legally murder citizens. Therefore it is not a lack of citizenship that is the basis for abortion being legal.

The law already tries to defend the life of the unborn if it is taken either through intentional or non-intentional means. There are many people in prison right now who were convicted of killing a baby inside the womb.

Abortion is oddly treated differently.

 

[Hank77]

Because it's hard to prove time and place of conception. Anyone can say "we conceived this baby in the USA; he is an American citizen". It takes birth records to prove an actual birth. Without the paper trail citizenship would become practically meaningless.

This is a logical answer.

 

[Archivist]

In some narrow cases it does. A court in the State a child is conceived in can have jurisdiction over support for the child even if the parents no longer reside in that State.

Proof of this please. I am a lawyer and I have never heard of a state having jurisdiction simply because a child was conceived there.

 

[Archivist]

The advantage the poster is considering for the baby by being considered a citizen at conception is that no one would have the right to kill it before it was born. The problem with the argument the OP is proposing does not are rise form the fact babies die before they are born it arises from the fact that we cannot legally murder non citizens any more than we can legally murder citizens. Therefore it is not a lack of citizenship that is the basis for abortion being legal.

But abortion isn’t murder.

 

[Archivist]

Has birthright citizenship been abolished recently?

As far as I know we still have that, even though President Trump has talked about ending it somehow.

Trump lacks authority to eliminate birthright citizenship. That would require a Constotutional amendment.

 

[Archivist]

Because it's hard to prove time and place of conception. Anyone can say "we conceived this baby in the USA; he is an American citizen". It takes birth records to prove an actual birth. Without the paper trail citizenship would become practically meaningless.

Agreed.

But that doesn't mean that the unborn has no human rights - at least, it did not until the Democrats' most recent push to dehumanize the fetus. A human life in utero was always protected by law against harm. But starting with New York last January, that protection was explicitly taken away, and unless that travesty has since been corrected, there remains no legal protection for the unborn in that state. Since then, several other Democrat-run states, like Virginia, Illinois, and New Mexico, have moved to follow NY's lead.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, abortion was not legally acceptable anywhere. The fact that the Framers wrote their document with no explicit mention of the unborn is not a statement against his humanness.

Wrong. Under Common Law, which was in effect when the Constitution took effect, abortion was legal until quickening. It wasn’t until 1821 that Connecticut adopted a law making it illegal. Other states followed thereafter.

 

[Archivist]

The law already tries to defend the life of the unborn if it is taken either through intentional or non-intentional means. There are many people in prison right now who were convicted of killing a baby inside the womb.

Abortion is oddly treated differently.

Because an assailant doesn’t have any right to attack a pregnant woman and terminate the fetus, whereas a pregnant woman has the right to choose.

 

[grasping the after wind]

But abortion isn’t murder.

Whether it is murder or not is a subjective opinion either way. It is completely dependent upon what one believes about how to qualify for personhood. A slave owner in 1850 would say killing his slave was not murder and say that his opinion on that was justified by the legal definition since a slave was not a person but his personal property no different than his cow or sheep. A woman can say she owns the fetus as part of her own body and therefore she is only legally disposing of her property in the way she sees fit as the fetus is not a person under the law. It is a similar argument for a different set of circumstances under which personhood is defined differently. If one believes an already born human is the only human that qualifies for personhood and all already born humans qualify, one rejects the slaveholder's argument and accepts the woman's . However, not everyone accepts that argument and proving it conclusively right or wrong is not possible. If one wants to cling to the notion that something is true because the law says it is, then one would have to say that in 1850 a slave was truly not a person as the law did not grant personhood to a slave but only to those that were free. I reject that idea and I would expect almost universal agreement with my rejection.

 

[SkyWriting]

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” So, if life begins at conception, why doesn’t citizenship begin at conception?

Because persons are not yet born?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Because an assailant doesn’t have any right to attack a pregnant woman and terminate the fetus, whereas a pregnant woman has the right to choose.

The right to choose murder..... Ok.

 

[Archivist]

The right to choose murder..... Ok.

Under US law abortion isn’t murder.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Under US law abortion isn’t murder.

Under US law, men have been put to death under its murder laws for killing an unborn baby. Some of those men used knives to cut open the woman. US law is inconsistent. It definitely though considers unborn babies included in the proscription against murder.

 

[Archivist]

Under US law, men have been put to death under its murder laws for killing an unborn baby. Some of those men used knives to cut open the woman. US law is inconsistent. It definitely though considers unborn babies included in the proscription against murder.

If a man assaults a woman an terminates the pregnancy that is murder. If a woman has an abortion she is exercising the choice she has over her body. Nothing inconsistent there.

 

[hedrick]

persons *born*

The legal implications for state laws that consider a fetus to be a person are interesting. Until they're born, they're stateless persons. Under current US policies they should be deported immediately.