We may disagree mildly at the exact moment life begins, but not on the the fact that abortion is a monstrous evil. Happy?
Now what does that have to do with natural-born citizenship?
So you’re on board w RU486, and other morning after pills, etc.?
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.