JW Question

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Now where's the dignity and humanity here? Why shouldn't she be allowed the option
of euthanasia?

you know how i feel about this my illustrious friend, no one has the right to take life, it
belongs to God, solely and exclusively. Now as you are a non believer, i do not expect
you to accept this, however, our position cannot be compromised, ...[text shortened]... wly die, flip sake, e are human
and conscious of suffering, but life is life and sacrosanct.

People have to die in agonising pain because it's 'simpler'. Nice one.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
People have to die in agonising pain because it's 'simpler'. Nice one.

not because its simpler, but because it sets a precedent, if you start opening up
euthanasia, it will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis, this presents all sorts
of difficulties, for as you are aware, health professionals can be swayed by any
number of factors!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Now where's the dignity and humanity here? Why shouldn't she be allowed the option
of euthanasia?

you know how i feel about this my illustrious friend, no one has the right to take life, it
belongs to God, solely and exclusively. Now as you are a non believer, i do not expect
you to accept this, however, our position cannot be compromised, ...[text shortened]... wly die, flip sake, e are human
and conscious of suffering, but life is life and sacrosanct.

My life belongs to me, mine and mine alone. I have the right to self-determination.

So essentially your stance on euthanasia is because 'that's what some unknown desert tribesman wrote'?! This a classic case of fundamentalism rearing it's ugly head.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not because its simpler, but because it sets a precedent, if you start opening up
euthanasia, it will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis, this presents all sorts
of difficulties, for as you are aware, health professionals can be swayed by any
number of factors!

It may present difficulties, but so what? Surely that's better than people having to suffer agonising pain.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
My life belongs to me, mine and mine alone. I have the right to self-determination.

So essentially your stance on euthanasia is because 'that's what some unknown desert tribesman wrote'?! This a classic case of fundamentalism rearing it's ugly head.

its termed a Biblical principle and for your information, the Bible was written by Kings
and judges, as well as humble fishermen and fig dressers, not that it makes a
difference, a principle is a principle.

yes you have the right to claim self determination and if it would make you happy i
wish that the government will introduce legislation according to your wishes, but , by
the same token, outr stance should also be respected.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its termed a Biblical principle and for your information, the Bible was written by Kings
and judges, as well as humble fishermen and fig dressers, not that it makes a
difference, a principle is a principle.

yes you have the right to claim self determination and if it would make you happy i
wish that the government will introduce legislation according to your wishes, but , by
the same token, outr stance should also be respected.

Biblical principle or not, it was written by the same people who decreed that homosexuals be put to death. That children who answer back to their parents be put to death. That villages guilty of apostasy be slaughtered and burnt to the ground and on and on.

As for you stance, sure, if you want to believe what some Bronze Age person wrote down and refuse blood transfusions that's your choice, you're a grown adult.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Biblical principle or not, it was written by the same people who decreed that homosexuals be put to death. That children who answer back to their parents be put to death. That villages guilty of apostasy be slaughtered and burnt to the ground and on and on.

As for you stance, sure, if you want to believe what some Bronze Age person wrote down and refuse blood transfusions that's your choice, you're a grown adult.

yes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were
never intended to be binding anyway, merely like scaffolding upon a building, once the
building was complete, they were removed, so your objections on this basis are
unfounded!

Some bronze age person? My man, Solomon's wisdom as well as his wealth,
patronage of the arts remains unsurpassed, even to this very day! You seems to have
a strangely distorted view of ancient civilisations.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were
never intended to be binding anyway, merely like scaffolding upon a building, once the
building was complete, they were removed, so your objections on this basis are
unfounded!

Some bronze age person? My man, Solomon's wisdom as well as his wealth,
patronag ...[text shortened]... ven to this very day! You seems to have
a strangely distorted view of ancient civilisations.

yes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were never intended to be binding anyway

Blaspheny was still punishable my death in this country until 1697. That's nearly 3,000 years after the law was written.

Solomon's wisdom as well as his wealth, patronage of the arts remains unsurpassed, even to this very day!

Says who? The Bible?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]yes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were never intended to be binding anyway

Blaspheny was still punishable my death in this country until 1697. That's nearly 3,000 years after the law was written.[/b]

yes, but that is the secular authorities, they did not understand anything about the
Christ, still dont. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in Pakistan and has been used
against the Christian minority in cases of local feud.

says the Queen of Sheba, herself a regent of an astonishing civilisation. Anyone
looking at the ancient eastern civilisations knows that they were anything but brutish
and 'bronze age'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, but that is the secular authorities, they did not understand anything about the
Christ, still dont. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in Pakistan and has been used
against the Christian minority in cases of local feud.

You would have thought an omniscient God who have seen that one coming.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You would have thought an omniscient God who have seen that one coming.

yes indeed, but because one sees something coming, does not mean that one has
made no provision, does it, the present human system perpetuates itself to
demonstrate the now incontrovertible truth, humans are not better off as a result of
seeking independence from God and that ultimately, human rule has failed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes indeed, but because one sees something coming, does not mean that one has
made no provision, does it, the present human system perpetuates itself to
demonstrate the now incontrovertible truth, humans are not better off as a result of
seeking independence from God and that ultimately, human rule has failed.

Do you have children?

If so, and one were hit by a car, could you honestly tell me you would refuse a blood transfusion to save his/her life, in this day and age?

Would you really permit that refusal?

Answer me in TRUTH!

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
Do you have children?

If so, and one were hit by a car, could you honestly tell me you would refuse a blood transfusion to save his/her life, in this day and age?

Would you really permit that refusal?

Answer me in TRUTH!

-m.

you have already called me a liar and have not apologised when it was demonstrated
to you, from a publicly maintained third part source that it has been our official policy
since 2000 not to charge for literature, secondly as your are quite obviously ignorant of
anything other than your own prejudices, parents have no jurisdiction over minors in
the case of blood transfusion, UK law, you might in future want to research your topic
prior to typing, God knows it will save me the bother of having to repeat the same
things again and again and of you expressing your ignorance.

Truth is not a word i associate with your posts, more like a kind of emotional tabloid
sensationalism, kind of like reading the Sun newspaper, you know its content is nill,
yet, trash sells, as this latest effort also purports to be.

Originally posted by mikelom
Do you have children?

If so, and one were hit by a car, could you honestly tell me you would refuse a blood transfusion to save his/her life, in this day and age?

Would you really permit that refusal?

Answer me in TRUTH!

-m.

He is a slave of the Watchtower Society and must allow his child to die,
if necessary, to prove his loyalty to them. It matters not what God
said ,but what the Watchtower Society says God said. Get it?

Originally posted by RJHinds
He is a slave of the Watchtower Society and must allow his child to die,
if necessary, to prove his loyalty to them. It matters not what God
said ,but what the Watchtower Society says God said. Get it?

more trash talk, just because your a pumpkin eater! Tell me RJH, what is it about,
'parents have no jurisdiction over their children in cases of blood transfusion, according
to UK law', that yet evades you? Are the words too long? their meanings obscure?
why are you stating that i shall allow my child to die when the law states that if a
consultant wishes to give my child a blood transfusion, they may do so? Is it normal
for you to make accusations of this kind , in the face of incontrovertible
evidence to the contrary? Why would you do that? what kind of person would slander
someone in this way? How many children have i killed in this way RJH, do tell.