meh. Not really. I like my boundaries clearly defined, not ambiguous, but perhaps close enough for my purpose.
Now what does that have to do with natural-born citizenship?
You concede that life does not start at birth, but at some time before that. Therefore, birth is not the criteria by which "person" status should be judged. Life is an inherent characteristic of a child, not something that "descends" upon it suddenly upon it's emergence from the womb. It is a natural and inherent condition of it's existence. Life isn't something that suddenly occurs upon birth. Why should citizenship?
Place of birth is arbitrary. You could put a pregnant woman on a merry-go-round straddling the border, the child could be alternately Mexican or American, depending on the timing. (Reductio ad absurdum.)
The argument that "Life" or "Person" status descends upon a child upon birth is a Liberal argument. Conservatives who believe in natural law understand that what is "natural" are those conditions already inherent in it's existence. Those who support abortion will argue some arbitrary man made threshold, but those who support life will recognize the boundaries as defined by Nature and Nature's God.
I would like to make a shorter/better explanation, but I don't have the time. I am rushed and I have to go now. I think you can see the gist of it though. Later people.
I appreciate your taking the time to provide the explanation in the detail that you did. But I'm sorry, I don't see the logic behind it. Factors present in the womb do not influence a person as much as experiences after birth. As James Madison said, "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States..." William Rawle said, "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." You all claim that Vattel was the be-all and end-all for the founders when it came to the question of citizenship. Yet it is obvious that such a claim isn't so.