1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    11 Sep '14 09:32
    http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full

    this article describes the current legal system regarding parents refusing blood transfusions for their children.

    Prince v Massachusetts set out the reigning legal principle:

    “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children...”
  2. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14581
    11 Sep '14 13:261 edit
    The use of the word "martyrs" makes it a very subjective viewpoint. I don't think JWs consider themselves or their children as being "martyrs". By choosing such a colorful word it obfuscates the meaning behind the statement.

    My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    11 Sep '14 13:33
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    The use of the word "martyrs" makes it a very subjective viewpoint. I don't think JWs consider themselves or their children as being "martyrs". By choosing such a colorful word it obfuscates the meaning behind the statement.

    My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
    I think society should protect ALL children from being programmed into any religion.
  4. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14581
    11 Sep '14 13:44
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think society should protect ALL children from being programmed into any religion.
    I would tend to agree with your general statement here, but many moderate theists wouldn't and rather want to focus on extremes like refusing bloodtransfusions by JWs.

    What does it mean when children are being protected from being programmed into any religion? This sounds like they should not be allowed to visit 1 specific church every sunday, because certainly that constitutes as being programmed. Is that what you mean?
  5. Joined
    11 Oct '04
    Moves
    5232
    11 Sep '14 13:52
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think society should protect ALL children from being programmed into any religion.
    How would you deliver that in practice?
  6. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148456
    11 Sep '14 14:10
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    How would you deliver that in practice?
    ISIS seems to be putting that into practice against those that disagree with
    them. I'm sure that is all it takes, a little self justification, and you can treat
    anyone as badly as you desire and blame them to boot.
    Kelly
  7. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14581
    11 Sep '14 14:37
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    ISIS seems to be putting that into practice against those that disagree with
    them. I'm sure that is all it takes, a little self justification, and you can treat
    anyone as badly as you desire and blame them to boot.
    Kelly
    Lol, what a totally random way of dragging IS into the conversation :-)

    Oh, you theists and your ways of pointing fingers to other religions. Funny shizzle.
  8. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    11 Sep '14 14:47
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    ISIS seems to be putting that into practice against those that disagree with
    them. I'm sure that is all it takes, a little self justification, and you can treat
    anyone as badly as you desire and blame them to boot.
    Kelly
    ISIS is not a religious organization.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148456
    11 Sep '14 18:46
    Originally posted by HandyAndy
    ISIS is not a religious organization.
    By what standard?
    Kelly
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148456
    11 Sep '14 18:49
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    Lol, what a totally random way of dragging IS into the conversation :-)

    Oh, you theists and your ways of pointing fingers to other religions. Funny shizzle.
    Not at all, pointing fingers at other people. It is the no different than the
    topic here, smash those that do not agree in this lifetime! There is no live
    and let live in the here and now. It is force someone by some means to
    do something against their will by some means.
    Kelly
  11. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14581
    11 Sep '14 19:00
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Not at all, pointing fingers at other people. It is the no different than the
    topic here, smash those that do not agree in this lifetime! There is no live
    and let live in the here and now. It is force someone by some means to
    do something against their will by some means.
    Kelly
    The question concerns when should the right of a parent to raise his child as he sees fit be respected and when should that right be wavered in protection of the child.

    Certainly you will agree that parents aren't allowed to do anything and everything to their child, just because it's their child?
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148456
    11 Sep '14 20:43
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    The question concerns when should the right of a parent to raise his child as he sees fit be respected and when should that right be wavered in protection of the child.

    Certainly you will agree that parents aren't allowed to do anything and everything to their child, just because it's their child?
    Yes, I agree; however, it is a dangerous place to error on in both directions.
    Kelly
  13. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    12 Sep '14 00:00
    No JW parent would ever want their child or any child on this planet to die. That would no doubt be the hardest thing any parent could go thru and would surley give their life in trade with no hesitation if they could. I know I would in a heart beat for mine.
    This has been discussed many time here on this forum and all one has to do is look up those past discussions to see our views and why we view the command from God himself to abstain from blood as including blood transfusions.

    But just for discussions sake though, if you knew that something you did daily put your childs life in danger with tens of thousands of children being killed by it yearly earth wide as compared to the couple children that may die earthwide for not taking blood transfusions that have Witness parents, would you view our stand differently?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98055567

    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/26/secondhand-smoke-kills-600000-worldwide-annually/

    Sure this is done daily without expecting to see your child die, but yet we all know there is an inherited risk and it is still a decision we make for our children without their opinions counting.
    So at what point does a parent make those decisions to protect their child? Does on just go with the flow with what others do and accept or do they follow their conscience and follow what they believe to be from God even if others do not agree?
  14. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    12 Sep '14 00:26
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    There is no live and let live in the here and now. It is force someone by some means to do something against their will by some means.
    Do you think "live and let live in the here and now" is a Biblical principle?
  15. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29835
    12 Sep '14 00:30
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Not at all, pointing fingers at other people. It is the no different than the
    topic here, smash those that do not agree in this lifetime!
    Should "force" ~ by which I mean state intervention ~ be used to stop parents from carrying out female genital mutilation on their children?
Back to Top