Originally posted by FMF
I do believe you have the "the right of self determination", robbie, of course, but you seem to be using it to avoid answering a point blank question about whether or not your principles would allow you to donate blood if it were necessary for you to do so to save a human life.

i would not donate blood under any circumstance, nor would i wish anyone to donate
blood to me under any circumstance, what other people do with their own bodies is
entirely up to them.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i would not donate blood under any circumstance, what other people do with their own bodies is entirely up to them.

Even if they would die as a result of your refusal? That's the hypothetical here. Nothing to do with what other people do with their own bodies being entirely up to them etc. Even if the "circumstance" were the death of another human, you simply would not donate?

Originally posted by FMF
Even if they would die as a result of your refusal? That's the hypothetical here. Nothing to do with what other people do with their own bodies being entirely up to them etc. Even if the "circumstance" were the death of another human, you simply would not donate?

I think he has been fairly clear on the issue. The question now is whether you think there is some grand conclusion to be made. Should people always but instinctual morality above belief? Do they?
Is preservation of life the ultimate moral requirement for a theist? Does that not somewhat contradict a belief in life after death?

Originally posted by FMF
Even if they would die as a result of your refusal? That's the hypothetical here. Nothing to do with what other people do with their own bodies being entirely up to them etc. Even if the "circumstance" were the death of another human, you simply would not donate?

yes even if they, I or anyone else would die, no blood!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes even if they, I or anyone else would die, no blood!

I am baffled as to why you spent 3 or 4 pages behaving like your answer was a secret or that it is a superstition which you are not proud of.

Originally posted by FMF
I am baffled as to why you spent 3 or 4 pages behaving like your answer was a secret or that it is a superstition which you are not proud of.

you were to my mind ignoring the principle of self determination, what i choose to do or
give or withhold from another person is irrelevant, its the wishes of the patient that
should be paramount, a fact that it appeared to me, you failed to acknowledge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Should people always but instinctual morality above belief? Do they?
Is preservation of life the ultimate moral requirement for a theist? Does that not somewhat contradict a belief in life after death?

I think the survival instinct and the instinct to save another's life - when possible - are integral elements of the human spirit. I think robbie's obvious discomfort answering the question for the last few pages is a clear indication that - perhaps subconsciously, to be fair to him - he 'knows' his adherence to his "organization's" rules runs totally against human nature - and is arguably depraved in terms of the lack of empathy and the resulting harm done, two things I believe form part of the very essence of morality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were to my mind ignoring the principle of self determination, what i choose to do or give or withhold from another person is irrelevant...

"What [you] choose to do or give or withhold from another person" was the very subject of my question, therefore it can hardly have been "irrelevant".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is preservation of life the ultimate moral requirement for a theist? Does that not somewhat contradict a belief in life after death?

I am not sure why you direct this question at me - or perhaps it is intended for general discussion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were to my mind ignoring the principle of self determination, what i choose to do or
give or withhold from another person is irrelevant, its the wishes of the patient that
should be paramount, a fact that it appeared to me, you failed to acknowledge.

erythropoeitin?

What you chose to do is try to advise a medicine to Dive's wife, which has been called a fake by no other than Alexei Koudinov, a JW practising, and quite good actually, doctor who calls for its deletion. You played a double bluff - but I saw through it. May be you didn't know the caller of this drug is a JW...... silly you, yet again! 😏

As for wishes of the patient, your JW world is full of indoctrination of children. They are brought up with a life of fear, to make irrational decisions against what they know in the 'real' world are rational. I pity JW children, I really DO! 😠

Your posts are abismal, indoctrinated, and full of crap! Not only in this forum, but most forums people despise you. You aren't a highly liked person at RHP, despite your ego.

The patient, to finish, if a child has no right of decision, and based upon your statements you would allow your child to DIE, rather than accept proven intervention.

What a waste of space as a parent you are. You must be so so proud of yourself!

Mike!

BUT THEN AGAIN, YOU HAVE BEEN INDOCTRINATED, SO YOU KNOW NO BETTER. DON'T YOU?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were to my mind ignoring the principle of self determination, what i choose to do or
give or withhold from another person is irrelevant, its the wishes of the patient that
should be paramount, a fact that it appeared to me, you failed to acknowledge.

Sorry, but we've been through this before. You can't claim self determination and not support euthanasia, it is nonsensical.

Originally posted by FMF
I wonder if anyone else here is finding robbie's evasion rather peculiar.

I am.

Originally posted by boonon
I am.

Me too! Whatever Robbie says on this website is rather peculiar, and he considers himself to be a JW who influences people. Take a gander to the chess forum, and let's see what he has to say. For, and because, he reckons he is a cool auditor of chess games, and can evaluate any game at the best of levels. I wonder how much time and attention he spends with his 'devoted to' children, whilst he is here?

-m.

Originally posted by FMF
I think the survival instinct and the instinct to save another's life - when possible - are integral elements of the human spirit.

Which is why I termed it 'instinctual morality'.
But there are obviously cases where our instincts may be over-ridden by other concerns. My question to you is whether you think this is ever valid.

I think robbie's obvious discomfort answering the question for the last few pages is a clear indication that - perhaps subconsciously, to be fair to him - he 'knows' his adherence to his "organization's" rules runs totally against human nature - and is arguably depraved in terms of the lack of empathy and the resulting harm done, two things I believe form part of the very essence of morality.
I think his discomfort is because he knows that it is a point that has repeatedly been used to criticize members of his religion.

My question to you is whether such criticism is fair or valid. Do you equally criticize the Muslims for not eating pork? Or only if a life is at stake?
Would you criticize a Christian who refused to renounce his religion at the cost of his life or someone else's?
Do you criticize Jesus for essentially taking this stance?
Why do you put instinctual morality above religion and it is reasonable to do so?

Originally posted by FMF
I am not sure why you direct this question at me - or perhaps it is intended for general discussion?

It is addressed both to you, and for general discussion. But unless you can explain why a theist - who believes in a life after death - should hold preserving life to be the ultimate moral good, you have no leg to stand on in this discussion.