13 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasPeople refuse life saving things all the time for a various amount of reasons.
I read in the article:“Dr Vaithilingum found herself in a difficult position when the parents refused the lifesaving treatment,” said Skelton.andAfter receiving the blood, her condition improved dramatically.I don't know more about the case as it is written in the article. Do you know more about the case in question?
The parents refused the life saving procedure. The doctor saved the 10-years old girl.
Most of them are just ready to die.
Do you honestly believe the parents wanted her to die, or those that
actually supported that belief all wanted her to die?
I doubt that completely!
I'm glad she was saved, happy she got the treatment she got.
It just means that your beliefs are meaningless, that is all if they disagree
with you.
Kelly
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by divegeesterYou have understood what I said, in the interpretation you chose. It is not what I meant. I fully concede that I may have said something that was not technically correct, or didn't match what I meant. If you have no intention of understanding what I meant, then that is your problem. You are free to pronounce what I said to be 'wrong'. But if you want to make pronouncements on my character, then have the decency to find out what my actual opinion is.
Oh no you don't... I understand what you said perfectly.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayIf an adult are ready to dye by denying medical care, its their choice. We agree on that. Suicide for those who want it themselves, well, who can stop them anyway?
People refuse life saving things all the time for a various amount of reasons.
Most of them are just ready to die.
Do you honestly believe the parents wanted her to die, or those that
actually supported that belief all wanted her to die?
I doubt that completely!
I'm glad she was saved, happy she got the treatment she got.
It just means that your beliefs are meaningless, that is all if they disagree
with you.
Kelly
But this is not about them. This is about parents who deny their daughter, 10 years of age, a life saving treatment.
If I had a son with a life threatening decease, and I just refuse letting any doctor see him, and he eventually dies of that decease. Do I get away with it of religius reasons? "Well, I am a JW so I am without responsibility." (?) Because I wouldn't get away with it otherwise.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasDo you think having a child die removes responsibility? It is life and death
If an adult are ready to dye by denying medical care, its their choice. We agree on that. Suicide for those who want it themselves, well, who can stop them anyway?
But this is not about them. This is about parents who deny their daughter, 10 years of age, a life saving treatment.
If I had a son with a life threatening decease, and I just refuse lett ...[text shortened]... l, I am a JW so I am without responsibility." (?) Because I wouldn't get away with it otherwise.
and every choice we make will play out. I have been saying I respect that
they could have a belief so strong they would be willing to risk their own
lives and their family. It isn't one I share! They are responsible for their
actions, accepting they have them does not resolve them from anything.
We did everything I believe everyone here would approve of when our
daughter died, and I still had guilt. The scriptures comforted me even
though I know we did everything we could. People who have their kids
die are not getting away with anything, and it isn't something I'd wish
on my worse enemy.
Kelly
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayOh, this got personal suddenly...
Do you think having a child die removes responsibility? It is life and death
and every choice we make will play out. I have been saying I respect that
they could have a belief so strong they would be willing to risk their own
lives and their family. It isn't one I share! They are responsible for their
actions, accepting they have them does not resolve t ...[text shortened]... e are not getting away with anything, and it isn't something I'd wish
on my worse enemy.
Kelly
I'm so sorry for your loss of your daughter. To lose one so close and so loved is a catastrophy. My thoughts are with you.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayso you are now saying you only support parents avoiding 'sin' and potentially causing harm to a child f there is evidence it is a sin in the bible..........does this mean you think the bible has evidence that the jw theory about blood is correct?
Show me the scripture in the Bible that suggests that, we can discuss that.
I don't believe mutilation is justifiable and is actually spoken against in
scripture.
Kelly
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayusing the excuse that there is 'possibly' scripture to back them up (regardless if you agree with their understanding of the scripture). is in my opinion bizarre. there a lots of passages in the bible that could be used to justify all kinds of horrific behavior. for example -
Do you think having a child die removes responsibility? It is life and death
and every choice we make will play out. I have been saying I respect that
they could have a belief so strong they would be willing to risk their own
lives and their family. It isn't one I share! They are responsible for their
actions, accepting they have them does not resolve t ...[text shortened]... e are not getting away with anything, and it isn't something I'd wish
on my worse enemy.
Kelly
if i offered up my daughter for rape to protect a house guest. you would be horrified and phone the police....you wouldnt just turn a blind eye and say 'well, although i disagree with his interpretation, he does have an argument that scripture supports it, so let him get on with it'.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayAn example of mutilation supported:
Show me the scripture in the Bible that suggests that, we can discuss that.
I don't believe mutilation is justifiable and is actually spoken against in
scripture.
Kelly
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
(Matthew 18:8-9 KJV)
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieI'm not as worried about sins against a false god, as I am about who I
so you are now saying you only support parents avoiding 'sin' and potentially causing harm to a child f there is evidence it is a sin in the bible..........does this mean you think the bible has evidence that the jw theory about blood is correct?
believe is the King of the universe. With respect to those that love Him and
are trying to walk out their faith, I do care about more. I will respect other
people even if I disagree with there faith as best I can. That said I would
never attempt to do something to another that would cause them sin
against their own soul, unless it brought them to Christ which would free
them from all sins against God.
No, I disagree with the JW view on blood, but I most certainly believe that
they would die for this view, and risk others too.
Kelly
13 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999That is how you take that verse? Do you still have your tongue and fingers
An example of mutilation supported:
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter in ...[text shortened]... ith one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
(Matthew 18:8-9 KJV)
due to the words you have said and written that may be sinful? Have you
ever looked at a woman and lusted, am I to assume you took out your eyes
after that occurred?
Kelly
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat do my actions [or anyone elses for that matter] have to do with what Christ said?
That is how you take that verse? Do you still have your tongue and fingers
due to the words you have said and written that may be sinful? Have you
ever looked at a woman and lusted, am I to assume you took out your eyes
after that occurred?
Kelly
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've not made any "pronouncements on your character". As you have said to me many many times - you are only what you post and if what you post is not what you mean, then you only have yourself to blame.
You have understood what I said, in the interpretation you chose. It is not what I meant. I fully concede that I may have said something that was not technically correct, or didn't match what I meant. If you have no intention of understanding what I meant, then that is your problem. You are free to pronounce what I said to be 'wrong'. But if you want to make pronouncements on my character, then have the decency to find out what my actual opinion is.
Feel free to explain why you feel Kelly is being "perfectly reasonable" in his pronouncements that the JW parents should be free (both in terms of law and conscience) to allow their daughter to die rather than recieve blood.
13 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterAlthough saving this child may seem like the humanitarian thing to do, it does bring it's own problems. At what point do we start allowing government to totally control our lives and at what point do we say no.
Despite the Jehovah's Witness alleged position (repeatedly stated in this forum by robbie carrobie) of blood transfusions being "a matter of personal conscience", the real experience of life inside the cult is somewhat different as the religious pressure by the governing body to conform to its pernicious doctrines continues to endanger lives. In this Sou ...[text shortened]... ://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022
In the "Obamacare Act" it states clearly that the health care is for viable people. Those who contribute to society. At what point will the US government determine who is a viable and who is not. All you need to look at is how they take care of their own veterans.
In this same concept, is it the right of the mob to control ones own personal beliefs. Even if they seem wrong?