Bloodless surgery wanted by the army......

Originally posted by FMF
You quoted Matt 18:6 but you didn't answer my question about it. Would the killing of another human being that it mentions be justifiable in your view?

I ignore all loaded questions. Do you have anything to say about bloodless surgery and alternatives to blood transfusion?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes.

Posters like galveston75 and KellyJay have - in the past - argued against the state having the right (i.e. jurisdiction) to interfere in a parent's decision whether to let their children die for want of a life saving blood transfusion or not. Would you disagree with their stance?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I ignore all loaded questions. Do you have anything to say about bloodless surgery and alternatives to blood transfusion?

You brought up Matt 18:6, not me. Does Matt 18:6 talk about a justifiable killing in your view. The reason I ask is because you quoted it on this thread.

Originally posted by FMF
Posters like galveston75 and KellyJay have - in the past - argued against the state having the right (i.e. jurisdiction) to interfere in a parent's decision whether to let their children die for want of a life saving blood transfusion or not. Would you disagree with their stance?

A false dictomy which ignores other possibilities namely that I neither agree or disagree. I am merely content to acknowledge another's stance. I am under no duress to agree or disagree with it merely to understand it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh dear perspexjeester seems unable to tell us why he would deny anyone the right of self determination? are we not free moral agents with recourse to the faculty of conscience? why must perspexjeester play god?

Why did you say this to divegeester when in the scenario he offered your spouse is unconscious, and when you have now, only a few posts later, stated that the state has jurisdiction over your children if you are deemed to be endangering them? Why did you not mention the jurisdiction thing at the outset?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A false dictomy which ignores other possibilities namely that I neither agree or disagree. I am merely content to acknowledge another's stance. I am under no duress to agree or disagree with it merely to understand it.

So you don't have any "principles" you are willing to talk about on this moral issue?

Originally posted by FMF
You brought up Matt 18:6, not me. Does Matt 18:6 talk about a justifiable killing in your view. The reason I ask is because you quoted it on this thread.

So you have nothing to say about bloodless surgery and alternatives to blood transfusion. Let me know when you do and I'll be happy to discuss it.

Originally posted by FMF
So you don't have an "principles" you are willing to talk about on this moral issue?

What is it about my statement that evades you?

Originally posted by FMF
Why did you say this to divegeester when in the scenario he offered your spouse is unconscious, and when you have now, only a few posts later, stated that the state has jurisdiction over your children if you are deemed to be endangering them? Why did you not mention the jurisdiction thing at the outset?

Bloodless surgery and alternatives to blood transfusion anyone?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is it about my statement that evades you?

Your statement suggests that you have no principle regarding the issue or you feel the need to keep your principle secret. So I am asking you to clarify: no principle on this moral issue, or secret principle on this issue - which is to be?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So you have nothing to say about bloodless surgery and alternatives to blood transfusion. Let me know when you do and I'll be happy to discuss it.

I think that the advances in bloodless surgery are to be welcomed.

Matt 18:6 - the verse you quoted - talks about drowning somebody deliberately for "caus[ing] one of these little ones--those who believe in me [Jesus]--to stumble"?

Originally posted by FMF
Your statement suggests that you no principle regarding the issue or you feel the need to keep your principle secret. So I am asking you to clarify: no principle on this moral issue, or secret principle on this issue - which is to be?

There is nothing to clarify. I neither agree nor disagree. Why that should be difficult for you to grasp I cannot say.

Originally posted by FMF
I think that the advances in bloodless surgery are to be welcomed.

Matt 18:6 - the verse you quoted - talks about drowning somebody deliberately for "caus[ing] one of these little ones--those who believe in me [Jesus]--to stumble"?

Do you think that Jesus words are to be taken literally or that perhaps they may just contain an element of hyperbole.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There is nothing to clarify. I neither agree nor disagree. Why that should be difficult for you to grasp I cannot say.

So if someone like galveston75 defied the state and went ahead and let his child die for want of a life saving blood transfusion, you would have no moral stance on that action, and you would have on moral stance on the legitimacy of the state's attempts to intervene in the interests of the child? You have no moral principles that you are able to apply to such a situation and such a conflict of rights and responsibilities?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you think that Jesus words are to be taken literally or that perhaps they may just contain an element of hyperbole.

You quoted the verse. Why don't you tell us what you think? Do you take the reference to blood in Acts 15: 28,29 literally?