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?

[olavisjo]

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?

I am sure that even the anti-abortion creationists would permit abortions in cases that have fatal genetic defects that would prevent a live birth. But no action is required on our part.
God has a right to kill whom he will, we don't. We are not God, we don't even have the right to kill ourselves.
I will concede that there are many gray areas, like Theresa "Terri" Marie Schindler Schiavo, where we must seek God's will with much prayer. But the reasons for allowing a person like that to die can't be extended to the homeless alcoholic who is living in misery without any desire to do anything about it, it may seem humane to some to put that person out of their misery, after all their life expectancy is not all that long anyway.
To end the life of a viable fetus is just sad. If you are a parent you may understand how special a child is, ask any person how they would feel if that special child in their life did not exist, they could just make another one and they would never know what that aborted child would have been like. But deep down inside they will wonder and there will be guilt.
So it is better to just have the child and let it be adopted to a family who wants the child if you are not able to love and care for it yourself.
However, abortions should be controlled by love not law.

[Beto]

I am sure that even the anti-abortion creationists would permit abortions in cases that have fatal genetic defects that would prevent a live birth. But no action is required on our part.

So they would let science decide whether or not a fetus is viable, over the option of non-interference in the manifestation of "God's" will? Why the exception? Why not allow all "babies" to have the opportunity to be naturally aborted, or born with defects and die later if that be "God's" will, or design?

God has a right to kill whom he will, we don't. We are not God, we don't even have the right to kill ourselves.

If we frown upon people saying "do as I say, not as I do", why does "God" get any special treatment? Is what "God" does, not "good"? Is doing the opposite not "evil"?

To end the life of a viable fetus is just sad.

Why is it sadder than denying all those millions of spermatozoids a chance to be an individual? Is the fetus more aware of itself?

If you are a parent you may understand how special a child is, ask any person how they would feel if that special child in their life did not exist, they could just make another one and they would never know what that aborted child would have been like. But deep down inside they will wonder and there will be guilt.

This is lack of awareness of how billions of potential children will never exist. A child is special. A fetus is a potential child. It's just closer than a spermatozoid.

So it is better to just have the child and let it be adopted to a family who wants the child if you are not able to love and care for it yourself.

I appreciate the sentiment, but only when a child already exists.

[olavisjo]

If we frown upon people saying "do as I say, not as I do", why does "God" get any special treatment? Is what "God" does, not "good"? Is doing the opposite not "evil"?

You driving your car is good. But your 10 year old son may not be able to do it as well as you. God knows what he is doing, we don't.

To end the life of a viable fetus is just sad.

Why is it sadder than denying all those millions of spermatozoids a chance to be an individual? Is the fetus more aware of itself?

If you are a parent you may understand how special a child is, ask any person how they would feel if that special child in their life did not exist, they could just make another one and they would never know what that aborted child would have been like. But deep down inside they will wonder and there will be guilt.

This is lack of awareness of how billions of potential children will never exist. A child is special. A fetus is a potential child. It's just closer than a spermatozoid.

So it is better to just have the child and let it be adopted to a family who wants the child if you are not able to love and care for it yourself.

I appreciate the sentiment, but only when a child already exists.

We have to draw the line of when a life begins, some choose arbitrary trimesters, I choose the point at which if we do not intervene, a person is inevitable.

[Beto]

If we frown upon people saying "do as I say, not as I do", why does "God" get any special treatment? Is what "God" does, not "good"? Is doing the opposite not "evil"?

You driving your car is good. But your 10 year old son may not be able to do it as well as you. God knows what he is doing, we don't.

That's hardly the point. How do you argue that when a human does something that already seems to be part of the "design", it can be "evil"? Up until what point does a fetus with chromosomal abnormalities survive? It can be a stillborn, it can be born, live for a short while and then die. We don't know. But if we don't interfere it happens anyway, so if there is one, it has to be part of the "design". Unless you argue differently, of course. I think this is the point you're avoiding. It doesn't matter whether or not I know what "God" wishes. Don't you regard the "design" to be inherently "good"? So, how can you argue that doing something that is already part of the "design" can be "evil"?

We have to draw the line of when a life begins, some choose arbitrary trimesters, I choose the point at which if we do not intervene, a person is inevitable.

Obviously that is completely arbitrary since every individual is unique, and there is no objective "line". It might be convenient. You can just pick when you think a person is inevitable, in a way that suits your mindset. Is that the point? How are other points of view (extreme as they may be) invalidated by that approach?

[olavisjo]

That's hardly the point. How do you argue that when a human does something that already seems to be part of the "design", it can be "evil"? Up until what point does a fetus with chromosomal abnormalities survive? It can be a stillborn, it can be born, live for a short while and then die. We don't know. But if we don't interfere it happens anyway, so if there is one, it has to be part of the "design". Unless you argue differently, of course. I think this is the point you're avoiding. It doesn't matter whether or not I know what "God" wishes. Don't you regard the "design" to be inherently "good"? So, how can you argue that doing something that is already part of the "design" can be "evil"?

Many would consider Down syndrome evil, and would abort such defectives. But to me they are God's special people and should be allowed to live and be taken care of, this may be a burden to us but it has it's rewards. Eugenics is evil, it is where man drives God's car before he has a license to do so.

1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

We have to draw the line of when a life begins, some choose arbitrary trimesters, I choose the point at which if we do not intervene, a person is inevitable.

Obviously that is completely arbitrary since every individual is unique, and there is no objective "line". It might be convenient. You can just pick when you think a person is inevitable, in a way that suits your mindset. Is that the point? How are other points of view (extreme as they may be) invalidated by that approach?

Some say that abortion is okay in the first trimester and not in the second.
In other words day 91 it is a medical procedure but on day 92 it is a criminal offense. I do not see a difference in the fetus that would warrant such a dichotomy.
So, the only places that we can logically draw such a line is conception and birth, and I can't imagine aborting a baby just because it has not yet seen the light of day.

[Beto]

Many would consider Down syndrome evil, and would abort such defectives. But to me they are God's special people and should be allowed to live and be taken care of, this may be a burden to us but it has it's rewards. Eugenics is evil, it is where man drives God's car before he has a license to do so.

1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

You're dancing around the issue. I'm interested in your personal opinion. How can you argue that doing something that is already part of the "design" can be "evil", without rejecting the whole of medicine? Anything in between is prone to a subjective interpretation and then you have no objective reason to say where the "line" is.

Some say that abortion is okay in the first trimester and not in the second.
In other words day 91 it is a medical procedure but on day 92 it is a criminal offense. I do not see a difference in the fetus that would warrant such a dichotomy.

Neither do I, but that's what happens when we choose to live in a society that is subject to a multitude of different perspectives. One must agree to a compromise between all perspectives.

So, the only places that we can logically draw such a line is conception and birth, and I can't imagine aborting a baby just because it has not yet seen the light of day.

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?

[olavisjo]

Neither do I, but that's what happens when we choose to live in a society that is subject to a multitude of different perspectives. One must agree to a compromise between all perspectives.

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

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?
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.

[JoelWildtree]

Some say that abortion is okay in the first trimester and not in the second.
In other words day 91 it is a medical procedure but on day 92 it is a criminal offense. I do not see a difference in the fetus that would warrant such a dichotomy.
So, the only places that we can logically draw such a line is conception and birth, and I can't imagine aborting a baby just because it has not yet seen the light of day.

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. What has changed within that one day, there honestly cannot be a significant difference which would warrant one being of legal status and the other remaining a minor. But if someone is not responsible to drive a car at birth obviously .. and from one day to the next no significant change can happen that would make this ok, they would never reach an age where they should drive, right? Logically we cannot hand out licenses until death, sounds like a good cutoff point.

[olavisjo]

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.