JWs and blood transfusions

Originally posted by galveston75
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 p ...[text shortened]... follow their conscience and follow what they believe to be from God even if others do not agree?

With complete respect for your point of view I find myself disagreeing with it. An earlier poster made a point about female genital mutilation and that happens with the parents', or at least the father's, consent. We live in societies where one is not entirely free, the constraints upon us make us richer, we gain more (in general) from being not perfectly free than we would from total freedom. I realise that this sounds contradictory, but it is not. Clearly there is a balance to be made, but total freedom is the freedom to starve to death.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have to accept that their religion cannot justify to the rest of society their children being sacrificed to their rules. If a consenting adult refuses treatment on religious grounds then they have my total support. However, unless they have scientific grounds for believing their child will suffer in this world more as a result of treatment than it's withdrawl then I think that it is not their call whether their child should receive life saving treatment. Would the JW's refuse a new recruit on the grounds they had had such a treatment in their own past? I suspect not.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you accept that "where you draw a line" is essentially a political issue and that it is right and proper for a society to define it collectively through deliberation on the part of its chosen representatives?

I accept that we put people into power to represent us, not rule over us which
is what I think we are morphing into now. If it were deliberation from our
elected officials is one thing, if it is a state agency taking matters into its own
hands that is quite another.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I accept that we put people into power to represent us, not rule over us which
is what I think we are morphing into now. If it were deliberation from our
elected officials is one thing, if it is a state agency taking matters into its own
hands that is quite another.
Kelly

You are sidestepping the question. Do you accept that "where you draw a line" regarding the protection of children is a political issue and drawing it is properly assigned to society as a whole? And if it is so, then surely a state agency taking matter of the protection of children "into its own hands" is what should then happen in cases where such protection is deemed necessary?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Taking away a child from a parent is a huge deal, so if the parent does
not fit the norms of someone else (state) then they can lose their kids.

Do you accept that this is sometimes the right course of action?

Originally posted by FMF
You are sidestepping the question. Do you accept that "where you draw a line" regarding the protection of children is a political issue and drawing it is properly assigned to society as a whole? And if it is so, then surely a state agency taking matter of the protection of children "into its own hands" is what should then happen in cases where such protection is deemed necessary?

Exactly what do you want me to say? Should we protect children, yes.
Now you have some people here seem to think they are protecting children
if they stop parents from teaching them about God, that okay with you?
I don't care where you draw that stinking line, someone on your side of
that line is going to abuse it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Now you have some people here seem to think they are protecting children
if they stop parents from teaching them about God, that okay with you?

Of course not.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Exactly what do you want me to say? Should we protect children, yes.

And you accept that the state has a legitimate role in this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care where you draw that stinking line, someone on your side of
that line is going to abuse it.

You don't care where the line is drawn? What about this: should "force" ~ by which I mean state intervention ~ be used to stop parents from carrying out female genital mutilation on their children?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You did take what I was saying and twisted it to where you were making
the claim I was okay with the child dying.

I didn't twist anything but if you can actually demonstrate specifically how and where I did I will be happy to apologise.

Originally posted by KellyJay
My defence was that I didn't think anyone should be forced to do
anything they had a heart felt belief was wrong.

This vague claim doesn't bear scrutiny though does it; for example do you think the ISIS members who sincerely believe that beheading infidels is supporting their God should be allowed to continue because they have a "heart-felt belief" that what they are doing is right?

Same thing with the JWs in that other thread; what they believe is primarily dangerous to human life and secondly is an erroneous doctrine propagated by a pernicious cult - it needs to be called out and prevented wherever possible. You as a Christian should be doing this, not defending their crazyness.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Taking away a child from a parent is a huge deal, so if the parent does
not fit the norms of someone else (state) then they can lose their kids.
Seems straight forward to me.

These parents were allowing this child to die because of a religious belief forced on them by a cult. Preventing them from doing this is not only the common sense thing to do, it's also the obvious morally correct thing to do.

Listening to you, a professed Christian, defend cult members rights to allow a child to die has got to be be one of the most revealling and frightening things I've read on these boards in the 6 years I've been posting here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You think teachng a child about God (a belief in) is child abuse?

I think allowing a child to die through denying medical care is child abuse of the highest order.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Yes, how surprising that another one of those "hot topics" gets named so soon. It's not like abortion hasn't been discussed here a million times before.

Sure, we could go there for the million-and-oneth (??) time but personally I was more interested in the gray area that I described before.

And - confession time - seeing as how I am very much an ...[text shortened]... a thing become a form of abuse?






But, yeah, abortion. Let's just go there.

Again.

I was confident you would not see the connection between protecting children under one set of circumstances and not feeling the need to protect them under another set of circumstances.

In my book this is a text book example of hypocrisy which would only be evident to you if the two examples did not include abortion. My point wasn't about abortion, so no, I wasn't trying to change the subject... my point was how easy it is for some people to advocate what is right or moral or ethical or whatever you want to call it, but only under certain conditions or circumstances.

In your case it's not okay to endanger the health of a child because of a religious creed, but it would be okay to harm that same child if he doesn't happen to make it to a certain age and level of development. I'm sure you believe it's wrong to harm children or allow harm to come to them, but as it turns out abortion just happens to now be a socially acceptable exception to this particular rule of ethical behavior.

If anyones sense of ethics is based on group-think or mob mentality, and is used as a basis for determining if something is right or not, or moral or not, or ethical or not (or whatever you want to call it) then what does that sound like to you? If this way of thinking becomes a habit for most people, then how safe you are sometime in the near future could easily become an iffy proposition for you personally... I'm just saying, acting sole on self interest now could easily come back to bite you big time on the butt later on down the road.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Taking away a child from a parent is a huge deal, so if the parent does
not fit the norms of someone else (state) then they can lose their kids.
Seems straight forward to me.
Kelly

Okay, sorry about that... I read it out of context. I thought you were responding to something else.

Originally posted by FMF
And you accept that the state has a legitimate role in this?

Of course.
Kelly