A life saved from the madness

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you agree that there needs to be a line?

yes, across your forehead with the words, REJECT stamped on it 😛

Originally posted by stellspalfie
do you agree that there needs to be a line?

Sure, who gets to set it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sure, who gets to set it?
Kelly

governments representing the general consensus should draw the lines.

who do you think should draw the lines?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
governments representing the general consensus should draw the lines.

who do you think should draw the lines?

Maybe the Christian Church.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
governments representing the general consensus should draw the lines.

who do you think should draw the lines?

works for me
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
works for me
Kelly

you have said several times that the parents should decide the fate of a child in relation to the use of life saving blood. your new comment seems to contradict this.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you have said several times that the parents should decide the fate of a child in relation to the use of life saving blood. your new comment seems to contradict this.

If you have a LAW that says this person can choose for themselves
it basically takes it out of the parents hands now doesn't it? You can
still have views against the state doing that; however, if you act against
the state which you have the power to do that, but you must be willing
to accept what occurs when you do, it will come with cost.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you have a LAW that says this person can choose for themselves
it basically takes it out of the parents hands now doesn't it? You can
still have views against the state doing that; however, if you act against
the state which you have the power to do that, but you must be willing
to accept what occurs when you do, it will come with cost.
Kelly

earlier you stated that we should draw a line and not let governments get involved in a parents right to decide what happens medically to their children (using examples of governments already having too much power)...........you then appeared to agree that governments should draw the line and not parents.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
earlier you stated that we should draw a line and not let governments get involved in a parents right to decide what happens medically to their children (using examples of governments already having too much power)...........you then appeared to agree that governments should draw the line and not parents.

I still hold that view, but as near as I can tell it was not the rule of law
that was used to take away what the parents wanted they just did it.
The law is something we should obey, if the government sets some
standard that goes against my faith, then I'll pay the price for not obeying
the law. I never said I want to do away with government laws, but those
laws should not take away our rights. The age of consent is a common
thing among men. I think the government should set that in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you know the name Sarah Murnaghan, her family had to force the
government to change its ways to save her life. As I pointed out to you
no matter what side of the discussion your on people can find things that
are just as nasty as the other side. I'm not going to accuse you of being
all for murder simply because you disagree with me, I can find people
who could have died or did.
Kelly

This is irrelevant to the fact that you support the effective murder of a young girl by her parents so you can protect their [alleged] religious freedom. No matter how many examples you throw into the mix of other people who have died because of this or that, the fact remains that you personally would let that child die (and presumably any other child or person in similar circumstances) to protect the religious beliefs of those cult members.

I find it astonishing that you have the front to still be here defending this position. Have you actually paused to consider what you are saying?

You still cowering in the corner with "no personal view" on the matter Mr Jehovah's Witness?

Originally posted by divegeester
This is irrelevant to the fact that you support the effective murder of a young girl by her parents ....

I really don't think murder is the right word.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I really don't think murder is the right word.

Deliberately causing someone to die. If not murder then what is it?

Originally posted by divegeester
This is irrelevant to the fact that you support the effective murder of a young girl by her parents so you can protect their [alleged] religious freedom. No matter how many examples you throw into the mix of other people who have died because of this or that, the fact remains that you personally would let that child die (and presumably any other child or ...[text shortened]... still be here defending this position. Have you actually paused to consider what you are saying?

I'm going to tell you this just once more, stop saying I support murder.
I do not!
I support people walking out their faith!
It isn't clear or a sure thing that if you get a medical treatment or get
denied one you will live or die.
Your hate filled speech is getting old.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm going to tell you this just once more, stop saying I support murder.
I do not!
I support people walking out their faith!
It isn't clear or a sure thing that if you get a medical treatment or get
denied one you will live or die.
Your hate filled speech is getting old.
Kelly

You support the permitting of the parents of the girl in the OP to allow her to die when she could easily be saved. That is YOUR choice and what you would do if you had the power in that situation. Whatever your faith, whatever your reasons, they mean less than nothing in the face of her death. Because of this you are a monster, deluded by a misconception of what freedom really is, a religious zealot.