The Pro-life argument is that life (citizenship) is inherent. The Pro-Abortion argument is that birth (on soil) is necessary. (to grant rights of personhood\citizenship)
If you believe that one only becomes a person at birth, the Jus Soli argument is for you. If on the other hand, you believe that a child inherits it's life and it's citizenship from it's parents at the moment of conception, the Jus Sanguinus argument is a better fit.
I don't believe that I've ever seen this stated in such a manner. Scintillating!
I have often thought if conservatives could be made to see the similarities between the two issues, they would realize that "birth" is an arbitrary place to draw the line between Person/Non-Person or Citizen/Non-Citizen.
I have argued this with Obots before, but they are singularly unimpressed with the comparison, likely because they aren't pro-life anyway. To them, picking arbitrary points of convenience like "birth" or "place" to establish characteristics which are actually inherent, is consistent for their other beliefs, such as moral relativity.
The Jus Sanguinus argument *IS* a different manifestation of the Pro-Life argument, and the Jus Soli argument, *IS* a different manifestation of the Pro-Abortion argument.