Are fetal chromossomal abnormalities "God's" fault

[Beto]

In another thread, there was sort of an understanding that 38% of miscarriages are chromosomal abnormalities. I didn't really do the math myself, so I'm assuming this is agreed upon. If not, please supply fresh numbers.

If one is a creationist, or an ID proponent, and lacking data to assume otherwise, one must regard chromosomal abnormalities as part of the design. In that case, and giving "God" the benefit of the doubt (a "good" "God" wouldn't allow that many people to die without a fighting chance), why should we regard fetuses as people, rather than simply potential people. Heck, we constantly reject the potential by not indulging our sexual drive at every single chance, so that's a non-issue.

So my question to anti-abortion creationists is: if "God" doesn't regard fetuses as people with an inalienable right to live, why should you? Do you presume to know better?

[Goat]

I don't see the difference between letting a 15.99 year old drive a car and a 16.00 year old, but one is incapable of legally driving (in most areas), and the other can be legally licensed.

I have to agree with you, therefore the age of a person should not be used as a factor in determining if we should grant the privilege of driving. It should be granted based on skill and maturity. I know a fifty year old man that should not be allowed to drive, as well as a thirteen year old who would be fine to drive.
In the same vein, the age of a person should not be used to determine if they have the right to live.

And, when is a fetus a 'person"?

That is the question.


IMO, it certainly isn't when it is jsut a clump of cells

[Beto]

I don't see the difference between letting a 15.99 year old drive a car and a 16.00 year old, but one is incapable of legally driving (in most areas), and the other can be legally licensed.

I have to agree with you, therefore the age of a person should not be used as a factor in determining if we should grant the privilege of driving. It should be granted based on skill and maturity. I know a fifty year old man that should not be allowed to drive, as well as a thirteen year old who would be fine to drive.
In the same vein, the age of a person should not be used to determine if they have the right to live.

Just like I can't trust your opinion (much less a child's) as to whether or not someone is fit to drive, your opinion as to what constitutes a person is also not a deciding factor. Just as you would have a panel of judges to decide if a person is fit to drive regardless of age (implementation nightmare btw), the same would happen to decide when a fetus becomes a person. When you voted, you manifested your choice of "panel".

One must not agree to a compromise...
I will only compromise over my cold dead body.

Do you vote?

[JoelWildtree]

I don't see the difference between letting a 15.99 year old drive a car and a 16.00 year old, but one is incapable of legally driving (in most areas), and the other can be legally licensed.

I have to agree with you, therefore the age of a person should not be used as a factor in determining if we should grant the privilege of driving. It should be granted based on skill and maturity. I know a fifty year old man that should not be allowed to drive, as well as a thirteen year old who would be fine to drive.
In the same vein, the age of a person should not be used to determine if they have the right to live.

But wouldn't you agree that development time is the best measure of the maturity of an embryo/fetus? Development is a fairly consistent process among all humans, so we can apply standards across the spectrum relating each period of development with a particular change. It would then come down to deciding at which stage should we cut it off. Also, we're not talking about the age of a person (which starts at birth), but the age of a developing human embryo/fetus.

[Beto]

But if "God's" "design" allows for fetuses to be naturally aborted, there's no reason to infer "God" would mind if we "mimic" the "design". After all the design is "good". The reasoning is simple. If "God" allows for fetuses to be naturally aborted, he must not regard them as "people", so we should not be obligated to do so. Why think "thou shalt not kill" applies to fetuses any more than it applies to fish, when "God" doesn't care about 38% of them?

God's design allows for the death of all living things, so I should be allowed to kill anyone I feel needs killing?

I don't think so, but I'm an atheist. Religious people have little objective reasons to criticize each other. So don't go spreading that around. Someone might get crazy ideas.

It is like this, if I come to work everyday in a brand new car and at the end of the day I smash it with a sledge hammer, it is okay because it is my car. But if you say to yourself "he is going to smash the car anyway so what harm will it be if I do it?" I tell you that if you do it, you will be charged with vandalism and be subject to paying for the car to be repaired.

That's a weak analogy, but I can work with it. If I believe cars getting smashed by sledgehammers is part of "God's" design, thus an inherently good thing, I may regard your personal feelings towards the matter as irrelevant. See the danger?