Conceived in the U.S.A.


    Someone wake up The Boss. “Born in the U.S.A.” is old news. “Conceived in the U.S.A.” is the new reality. Courtesy of Virginia’s right-wing zealots, personhood begins at conception. But if that’s true, the rights of citizenship will begin at conception – and that opens a sea of troubles.

    Millions of foreigners will sue for Obamacare based on mom’s tryst in an airport Marriott. Disneyworld will have a new slogan: “Conceive in Orlando; get US citizenship for your future child!

    If conception equals personhood equals citizenship, every foreign woman entering and exiting the U.S.A. will need a pregnancy test. The tourist industry will scream, but so what?

    On the plus side, millions of foreigners will owe U.S.A. taxes – based on conception within our borders.

    We will also expand the number of males eligible for Selective Service.

    So get ready to issue social security numbers at conception, open up Obamacare to foreigners conceived in the USA, and fund the immigration service for millions of pregnancy tests. If you love big government, you’ll love personhood!

    Conceived in the U.S.A., I’m a cool rocking zygote in the U.S.A.”

    • “But if that’s true, the rights of citizenship will begin at conception”

      Really? So-called ‘right-wing zealots’, who seek to protect the sanctity of life, are really opening the door to all this?

      I simply cannot see it, but then, I’m attempting to apply reason to the discussion. Perhaps you can elaborate further.

    • Jeff Barnett

      Someone will eventually sue for citizenship status based on their personhood at the time of conception. After all, every person “Born in the USA,” regardless of parental citizenship, is automatically a US citizen under current law. Under the personhood law, their constitutional existence as a person would be the same at conception as it presently is at birth.

      I suspect you enter the issue from a pro-life perspective. I enter from the pro-choice perspective.

      I am pro-choice because I believe there is no public good that our government will achieve through anti-abortion laws. In fact, the opposite is true. I remember the age of back-alley abortions. It was not a pleasant experience.

      Pro-life arguments are inevitably based on religion. I believe religion belongs in our homes, hearts and churches. Because religious beliefs are so varied, no government except a theocracy would ever be able to decide among conflicting tenets. Pro-life arguments based only on religious beliefs risk compromising the First Amendment.

      I respect you for “pearing over the fence” into the liberal side. I would very much like to read your reactions to my assertions.

    • Jeff Barnett

      I just viewed the O’Malley/McDonnell interview on Politico. Towards the end, the moderator asked McDonnell about his views on gay marriage. McDonnell prefaced his answer by saying, “my views are driven by religious beliefs.” In essence, Governor McDonnell is comfortable with legislation based on religion. Does anyone else have problems with this approach?