09 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderIndividuals can fiollow whatever faith they like, they can even be Nazis if they want. However when people are put at risk or damaged or hurt by that belief then I think there should be accountability.
Yes, it's hysterical demagoguing and you continue to do it. Until the findings of the inquest are made public, there is no reason to conclude that the first woman died because of HER decision not to have a blood transfusion. So all the "what price a life" and her "poor babies" blather is simply an appeal to emotionalism; necessary in this case as the fac ...[text shortened]... o you can declare to them what part of their faith is too ridiculous to be followed?
You cannot seriously think that the Catholic church paid out all that money to these abused children for no reason? Yet it took court cases to bring it out, because it was being buried, for whatever reasons, by those who thought they knew better. Sound familiar? 'I am right, I know better'.
10 Nov 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI have no idea what the connection between the Catholic Church paying out money to children abused by their employees and this case is. Do you think the JW's should be financially liable every time one of their members has something bad happen to them that is possibly related to the beliefs of the JWs? That would be quite an extraordinary concept.
Individuals can fiollow whatever faith they like, they can even be Nazis if they want. However when people are put at risk or damaged or hurt by that belief then I think there should be accountability.
You cannot seriously think that the Catholic church paid out all that money to these abused children for no reason? Yet it took court cases to bring ...[text shortened]... r reasons, by those who thought they knew better. Sound familiar? 'I am right, I know better'.
10 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf you want to label the possibility of people deciding to not associate with person A because person A did something that they don't approve of as "coercion", be my guest. I simply maintain that it is a non-standard use of the word. Under that definition, we are all "coerced" by the attitudes of our friends and family every single day.
[/b]And I guess you missed were it said family members living with the disfellowshipped person did not have to "shun" them.
That exceptional case does not apply. None of the shunned people I know of were living in a house with other JW's.
And if they decide to on their own, that's up to them - you do believe that they should be free to do so, y indeed be disputing their right to shun. I don't wish to be lumped in with them.
10 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderliability is an extraordinary concept?
I have no idea what the connection between the Catholic Church paying out money to children abused by their employees and this case is. Do you think the JW's should be financially liable every time one of their members has something bad happen to them that is possibly related to the beliefs of the JWs? That would be quite an extraordinary concept.
Chill.
10 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderYou clearly failed to read my post. However I can repeat it if you wish.
"Liability" is one word; perhaps you should answer the question in the SENTENCE in my last post.
Liability for what people believe IS an extraordinary concept.
"Individuals can fiollow(sic) whatever faith they like, they can even be Nazis if they want. However when people are put at risk or damaged or hurt by that belief then I think there should be accountability."
Is there some problem with that? If people are hurt or damaged by another person then there should be accountability.
This is not a difficult concept.
10 Nov 07
Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right of society. So is the right to life and (in Canada, anyways) the right to terminate that life if one so wishes.
There should be no issue if she doesn't want a blood transfusion. There really is no legal dillema, or ethical, for that matter.. it's just a difference of opinion. If you have an issue with that you're not in a very good place.
10 Nov 07
Originally posted by ih8sensBut it's debatable to terminate one's life due to a religious belief when there are dependent children involved. We live in society and we aren't simple a bunch of individuals. Respect for others in the society, specially our own children should be more outlined.
Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right of society. So is the right to life and (in Canada, anyways) the right to terminate that life if one so wishes.
There should be no issue if she doesn't want a blood transfusion. There really is no legal dillema, or ethical, for that matter.. it's just a difference of opinion. If you have an issue with that you're not in a very good place.
In this case, it's a religious belief, respected as all other beliefs that lead to the death of an individual with responsibilities. Society has the right to criticize that decision.
10 Nov 07
Originally posted by serigadoSounds fair.
But it's debatable to terminate one's life due to a religious belief when there are dependent children involved. We live in society and we aren't simple a bunch of individuals. Respect for others in the society, specially our own children should be more outlined.
In this case, it's a religious belief, respected as all other beliefs that lead to the death of an individual with responsibilities. Society has the right to criticize that decision.
I guess it comes down to this: Are you willing to stake your life on your faith in God and the Bible?
Your opinion will differ from the next one but as for me I think this woman's decision should be applauded.
Now I'm out of this thread... this forum is not for me. Back to the chess one 😛.
10 Nov 07
Originally posted by ih8sensI guess it comes down to this: Are you willing to stake your life on your faith in God and the Bible?
Sounds fair.
I guess it comes down to this: Are you willing to stake your life on your faith in God and the Bible?
Your opinion will differ from the next one but as for me I think this woman's decision should be applauded.
Now I'm out of this thread... this forum is not for me. Back to the chess one 😛.
Never in my life. But I don't have faith in gods, and specially less in the Bible.
Why should that decision be applauded? Because she sacrificed her life and the well being of her children for her faith? Stupid proofs of faith are shown everyday in the television. They tend to lead to suffering from those around. Not a good thing, but those are my parameters. Fundamentalism is never a good thing.
10 Nov 07
Originally posted by ih8sensYou really think there is no issue here at all?
Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right of society. So is the right to life and (in Canada, anyways) the right to terminate that life if one so wishes.
There should be no issue if she doesn't want a blood transfusion. There really is no legal dillema, or ethical, for that matter.. it's just a difference of opinion. If you have an issue with that you're not in a very good place.
Perhaps if we don't muddle the issue by somehow suggesting that you agree with the right to terminate life, because, and I am guessing here, that you don't really think that taking your own life (or another's) is ok, or trivial.
If she does not want appropriate medical care, then as an independant adult in a free society that is up to her. Notice she had to sign a lot of paperwork, because it is not considered part of standard medical practice for this to take place. Why? Because it offers a higher risk than otherwise; ie she is indulging in high risk behaviour.
Is this parachuting? motor racing? taking illegal drugs? prostitution? diving? no. This is a mother planning to start a family. At a time when any other mother and father are especially careful to preserve all life she has chosen to leave a life preserving option aside.
OK lets look at what the second mother said:
"Having been brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, Ms Underhill, now 32, from Peacehaven, near Brighton, says she believed she had no choice but to sign a form refusing blood treatment which had been handed to her by religious elders.
She says she feared being "disfellowshipped", or being rejected by the religion if she declined to sign."
She made a free choice?
OK lets have a look a religion a little wider of the mark. From Wiki:
"Heaven's Gate......... group's end coincided with the appearance of Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997. Applewhite convinced thirty-eight followers to commit suicide so that their souls could take a ride on a spaceship that they believed was hiding behind the comet carrying Jesus. ..... The group was formally against suicide, but they defined "suicide" to mean "to turn against the Next Level when it is being offered."[3] They were convinced that their "human" bodies were only "vehicles" meant to help them on their journey."
Now as independent adults they are free to worship how they please, but to the majority is it not such a clever idea to 'turn against the Next Level when it is offered'. I wonder how many of these people truely made 'free' choices when so deeply integrated into such a group. Note here also 'because the cult believed in cutting off ties with family members.' Isolation is a powerful weapon.
Finally, the 'Peoples Temple' (from Disciples of Christ). Reportedly over two hundred children 'committed suicide'. Free choice? I would say on balance probably
not.
So if there is free choice there is not a problem. If there is not.....
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by no1marauderI simply maintain that it is a non-standard use of the word.
If you want to label the possibility of people deciding to not associate with person A because person A did something that they don't approve of as "coercion", be my guest. I simply maintain that it is a non-standard use of the word. Under that definition, we are all "coerced" by the attitudes of our friends and family every single day.
The dictionary definitions I provided earlier are clear. Obsolete, archaic, or rarely used meanings of word usually have tags indicating this. Since I see no such tags, I conclude that the meaning is indeed a standard one.
Under that definition, we are all "coerced" by the attitudes of our friends and family every single day.
You missed the word 'overwhelming' in the definition of 'compel'. A small amount of influence does not qualify as coercion.
11 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitI don't see any "overwhelming" influence here so your use of the word remains incorrect.
[b/]I simply maintain that it is a non-standard use of the word.
The dictionary definitions I provided earlier are clear. Obsolete, archaic, or rarely used meanings of word usually have tags indicating this. Since I see no such tags, I conclude that the meaning is indeed a standard one.
Under that definition, we are all "coerced" by the atti ...[text shortened]... ' in the definition of 'compel'. A small amount of influence does not qualify as coercion.
11 Nov 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandOf course, woman 2 (and woman 1) made a free choice. You haven't made ANY argument that they did not. The fact that someone else doesn't like an option I might choose does not deprive me of the choice of taking that option.
You really think there is no issue here at all?
Perhaps if we don't muddle the issue by somehow suggesting that you agree with the right to terminate life, because, and I am guessing here, that you don't really think that taking your own life (or another's) is ok, or trivial.
If she does not want appropriate medical care, then as an independant ...[text shortened]... there is free choice there is not a problem. If there is not.....
Trying to argue from completely dissimilar examples is fallacious as you well know. JW's aren't "isolated" and don't commit mass suicide. Let's see, you've used Nazis, Heaven's Gate and Jim Jones so far; what other ridiculous comparisons are you going for?