@kellyjaysaid I don't recall that but I'd say its possible. Compared to what is being presented here, which one kills more?
How is that relevant to the topic?
If you think the government should make abortions illegal then that is your prerogative; you should vote accordingly in elections; and you should engage in whatever activism you think is appropriate, even if that is only your personal lobbying in an arena like this.
The question here is whether the government should intervene to protect children from their parents if those parents are going to allow those children to die for want of available medical treatment. The principle behind it, i.e.'government/society's right to intervene' versus 'parents' freedom of religion' remains the same regardless of whether one child in saved or a thousand are saved.
If you think the government should make abortions illegal then that is your prerogative; you should vote accordingly in elections; and you should engage in whatever activism you think is appropriate, even if that is only your personal lobbying in an arena like this.
The question here is whether the government should intervene to protect ...[text shortened]... edom of religion' remains the same regardless of whether one child in saved or a thousand are saved.
Well lets examine that for a moment, if I understand what is being presented here as child sacrifice it is not allowing the blood transfusion which may not result in a death of a child, it could but not by design. Abortion by design kills and this is very close to what one could call a child sacrifice without a doubt the death of a child is the desired outcome. You think being legal changes either outcome, does making it legal make it good? Is the stance on blood transfusion only your personal view prerogative, is that the way your compass points, blood transfusions bad, abortions good?
@kellyjaysaid Well lets examine that for a moment, if I understand what is being presented here as child sacrifice it is not allowing the blood transfusion which may not result in a death of a child, it could but not by design. Abortion by design kills and this is very close to what one could call a child sacrifice without a doubt the death of a child is the desired outcome. You think bei ...[text shortened]... sonal view prerogative, is that the way your compass points, blood transfusions bad, abortions good?
I don't think blood transfusions are "bad" and I don't think abortions are "good". But abortions are legal in the U.S., as are blood transfusions.
On the other hand - as far as I know - the authorities are legally entitled and perhaps legally required to step in and protect children from the risk of death at the hands of their parents if treatment is being withheld for religious reasons.
An adult who is able to give his or her informed consent can, of course, decide not to have a blood transfusion and therefore die.
@kellyjaysaid You think being legal changes either outcome, does making it legal make it good?
Do you think the state's duty to protect children from their parents' actions trumps the 'right to religion' of those parents - which, in this case, means their children would die, in effect, because of 2-3 words - arguably taken out of context - in the middle of one sentence in the Bible?
@fmfsaid Do not religious beliefs and doctrines create "objective truth", then?
They do.
And withholding a lifesaving blood transfusion is wrong.
Not vaccinating your kids is wrong.
But... I understand that since the intention is nothing like "child sacrifice," it is a misnomer to call it that.
For similar reasons, while abortion is killing a human life, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to aggressively claim that the people who have made this mistake are murderers. I think they are doing something terrible, but because their perception of it is so incredibly different it shouldn't be thought of in the same way.
@philokaliasaid But... I understand that since the intention is nothing like "child sacrifice," it is a misnomer to call it that.
The intention is to either please or not anger a god figure with the manner of the death of a child. As I said before, I think a spade is being called a spade here.
@fmfsaid The intention is to either please or not anger a god figure with the manner of the death of a child. As I said before, I think a spade is being called a spade here.
Wait, so Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing children?
@philokaliasaid Wait, so Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing children?
How so?
Any appeasement of a deity that results in the avoidable death of a child has simply got to be called out for what it is: "child sacrifice".
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing their children in situations where they could survive and they do it because of Acts 15:28-15:29 (and one or two other verses: see Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10).
These verses create, in their minds, a moment-of-decision where they want to please their God and they decide they must allow their sick children to die in order to do so.
I think the authorities should intervene in such cases; do you agree?
@fmfsaid Any appeasement of a deity that results in the avoidable death of a child has simply got to be called out for what it is: "child sacrifice".
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing their children in situations where they could survive and they do it because of Acts 15:28-15:29 (and one or two other verses: see Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10).
These verses create, in their ...[text shortened]... to die in order to do so.
I think the authorities should intervene in such cases; do you agree?
... Three passages about not eating blood.And they take that and make it into an anti-blood transfusion thing.
Umm, sure, I would force, by law, for children to receive blood transfusions if required.
But I would not call these extreme cases to be "child sacrifice."
It'd be some form of child neglect -- religiously motivated, sure. But there was religiously motivated actual child sacrifices too.
@philokaliasaid I would not call these extreme cases to be "child sacrifice."
It'd be some form of child neglect -- religiously motivated, sure. But there was religiously motivated actual child sacrifices too.
These are actual "child sacrifices" too. The same ultimate objective - with the same outcome: a dead child - albeit in different circumstances, can be referred to with the same term. No problem.
@secondsonsaid I'll have to disagree with you. Abortion is sacrificing a child. Of course there's no god involved, so it can't be said it's done for religious reasons, but the aborted baby is indeed a sacrifice.
I believe that anyone that would refuse medical treatment to save their child's life is effectively engaged in a form of abortion, so in that sense it's a sacrifice.
But to characterize that sacrifice as a sacrifice to God is taking it too far. It's irrational.
Abortion is not “sacrifice”, you are using the word “sacrifice” incorrectly.
Jehovahs Witnesses believe that receiving a blood transfusion is against the wishes of their version of God. Some JW parents will use their parental authority to override medical experts and prevent their child receiving a blood transfusion even when it will save the child’s life. They do this to obey the wishes of their version of God. It is child sacrifice. Sacrificing their child to appease their God’s wishes.
There are many documented cases of children dying by being sacrificed to the JW God. There are also documented cases of the state overriding the parents at the request of the medical experts.
If you would like to know more, there is a link in the OP.
08 Mar '19 02:221 edit
Child sacrifice and “the goodness of their God”
Back to Top