Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat about the young man? what about his concerns? forget yours just for a moment? do you think it was easy? do you think it was an easy decision? what about his parents? it must have been real easy on them also?
what about the young man? what about his concerns? forget yours just for a moment? do you think it was easy? do you think it was an easy decision? what about his parents? it must have been real easy on them also?
He seems to have been able through his personal testimony to convince a judiciary, but not you, of his right to self determinati ...[text shortened]... gedy, i myself could hardly read it, but i cannot help but marvel at his conviction and faith!
I am not sure the reason for this line of inquiry. I agree that this was likely a very difficult and burdensome decision. I can't imagine the agony he and his parents suffered. By no means do I want to trivialise their anguish. Of course, this only reinforces my point that this is a tragedy and justifies my outrage at your organisation. It has simply created unnecessary pain to a family, prematurely terminating a life and uprooting a family.
He seems to have been able through his personal testimony to convince a judiciary, but not you, of his right to self determination.
I have not denied his right. I have only expressed my compassion for him and my contempt at your organisation for deluding him. He was a victim of your weird blood ideology. I do not doubt that he demonstrated great courage and moral conviction. His commitment to his beliefs was noble but, nonetheless, misguided and deluded.
What you have read, is nothing more than an outstanding faith in Gods word in that the promises of a resurrection on the basis of Jesus Christ blood are able to transcend even death itself!
Perhaps. I have a great respect for the Christian martyrs but not merely because of their invincible hope in the resurrection. They died for a cause in the face of persecution. This man died needlessly. He may have a praiseworthy belief in the resurrection but, really, so might a suicidee. I can't imagine how a merciful, loving God could want this outcome.
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kthankyou Conrau for at least trying to understand, regardless of whether you think it wise, suicidal, absurd, sacrilegious or whatever.
[b]what about the young man? what about his concerns? forget yours just for a moment? do you think it was easy? do you think it was an easy decision? what about his parents? it must have been real easy on them also?
I am not sure the reason for this line of inquiry. I agree that this was likely a very difficult and burdensome decision. I can' ...[text shortened]... ally, so might a suicidee. I can't imagine how a merciful, loving God could want this outcome.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLook Rob, honestly you (the JWS) come across as decptive.
Karoly try to understand the reasons, i don't care if you do not agree with it, think its absurd, crazy , whatever, just try to understand the reasons without making a judgement, for so far this has failed the entire forum, with the exception of Noobster who seems more puzzled than judgemental.
That kid may well have believed in somehting good that was going to get him to heaven, or whatever, but to hold this type of story up as an example of martyrdom is dangerous. Yes, he should be given the right to self-determination.
No, it shouldn't be printed in the Watchtower or here at rhp.
There is absolutely no proof that not recieving a blood transfusion helped him in any way except that he thought it would according to his own interpretation of his own life/religon. Thinking that it might help is awfully small in comparison to the precious life that you are terminating which could otherwise be saved.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that people that have had blood transfusions have had anything bad happen to them. In this life or the next. Lets look at the evidence, eh?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThank you for posting this. It is harrowing, but it does confirm the basis of criticism made at http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html. I see you've already been swamped with criticism, but hopefully you'll be willing to clear up my confusion by answering some restated questions ( in bold ):
contd.
“I agree that the doctor made eminent sense when he said that the patient must be in a cooperative and positive frame of mind about chemotherapy and other cancer treatments in order for there to be any hope, any real hope, of success, and that a patient on whom something is forced contrary to his most deeply held beliefs would be a patient ...[text shortened]... present life, Adrian Yeatts showed himself to be one of the many young people who put God first.
Are blood transfusions physically beneficial for you or not?[/b]
When I studied theology and considered extra-marital sex my teachers would avoid arguments that involved invoking STD's or unwanted pregnancies because they were irrelevant. Instead they discussed the biblical evidence and explained the prohibition in terms of broad ideas of the nature of the human person and described the harm caused in terms of a kind moral damage. So though they definitely described a negative consequence in this life for a sinful act, they avoided highlighting physical harms like STD's because even if STD's didn't exist, fornication would still be morally wrong.
However, the way you presented the issue of blood transfusions, I'm keen to ask if blood transfusions could be performed so they definitely caused no physical harm, they would they still be immoral?
Of course, reading Adrian's story, I think the answer must be yes – Adrian may not have lived if he had a transfusion, but it couldn't have caused him physical harm – at least not in the context of his larger illness. Further, the point of that issue of Awake! was to describe Adrian's stand as a kind of Martyrdom, which implies that he followed God's command despite the fact that the transfusion could have saved him (and Adrian must have had a reasonable expectation it would have saved him).
Earlier you were pushing the phrase suicide cult – so using your expression – Would it be fair to describe Adrian's decision as being influenced by his membership of a suicide cult and if not, why not?
I appreciate that Adrian said, “it wouldn’t matter whether my parents were Jehovah’s Witnesses or not. I still wouldn’t take blood.” but it it an unusual stance to take without being exposed to Jehovah's Witness teaching. As is: The way I feel is that if I’m given any blood that will be like raping me, molesting my body. I don’t want my body if that happens. I can’t live with that
3 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelwhat part of the right to self determination did you miss? what part of tens of thousands of persons having died as a result of transfused blood are you yet unable to comprehend? what part of trying to understand without judgement did you not perceive? what part of we have openly discussed out stance and don't care whether you agree with it or not that went over the top of your head?
Look Rob, honestly you (the JWS) come across as decptive.
That kid may well have believed in somehting good that was going to get him to heaven, or whatever, but to hold this type of story up as an example of martyrdom is dangerous. Yes, he should be given the right to self-determination.
No, it shouldn't be printed in the Watchtower or here at rhp. ...[text shortened]... have had anything bad happen to them. In this life or the next. Lets look at the evidence, eh?
3 edits
Originally posted by NimzofishFirst of all i resent the term cult, we have never been nor ever will be a cult. Secondly suicide cult is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, for he did not wish to die, did he? he wanted to live, did he not? It simply comes down to the fact that he would not compromise his faith, even at the risk of losing his own life. Had an alternative been acceptable, he would have taken it, would he not? Clearly it was not a suicide.
Thank you for posting this. It is harrowing, but it does confirm the basis of criticism made at http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html. I see you've already been swamped with criticism, but hopefully you'll be willing to clear up my confusion by answering some restated questions ([b] in bold ):
Are blood transfusions physically beneficial for yo olesting my body. I don’t want my body if that happens. I can’t live with that [/i][/b]
As for the ethical issues, i shall refer you to an article, it shall explain in a more concise and lucid fashion than i could myself, just give me a minute or two. Please try this, any comments of course are welcome.
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/article_01.htm
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhew..You guys have been busy all night. Lots of post... Anyway we know we're not a cult. There are certian issues and identifying traits that would put one in that catagory and we don't even come close.
First of all i resent the term cult, we have never been nor ever will be a cult. Secondly suicide cult is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, for he did not wish to die, did he? he wanted to live, did he not? It simply comes down to the fact that he would not compromise his faith, even at the risk of losing his own life. Had an alternative be ...[text shortened]... explain in a more concise and lucid fashion than i could myself, just give me a minute or two.
cult   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled[kuhlt] Show IPA
–noun
1.a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3.the object of such devotion.
4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5.Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6.a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7.the members of such a religion or sect.
8.any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorth
how safe is blood screening?
According to the hospital’s medical director, soon after Eniola’s birth, she was found to be jaundiced. An exchange blood transfusion was prescribed, and the father donated some units of blood. But the father’s blood was found to be incompatible, so blood from the hospital’s blood bank was administered. Before long, the baby tested positive for HIV, though both parents tested negative. According to the hospital, “the blood transfused into the baby was screened and found to be HIV-negative at the time it was transfused into the baby.”
How, then, did the baby get infected? The Nigerian government investigated the controversy and concluded that the likely source of the infection was the transfused blood. The Nigerian Tribune newspaper quoted a virologist as saying: “At the time of donating the blood, the donor was at the window period of HIV infection.”
This is but a single case, yet it highlights the fact that blood transfusions are not risk free. Describing the HIV window period, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says: “It can take some time for the immune system to produce enough antibodies for the antibody test to detect and this time period can vary from person to person. This time period is commonly referred to as the ‘window period’. Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. . . . In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months.”
So, the fact that blood has been screened for HIV is no guarantee that it is safe. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation warns: “Although HIV may not be detected by a test during the window period, HIV can be transmitted during that time. In fact, individuals are often most infectious during this time (shortly after they have been exposed to HIV).”
Originally posted by Proper KnobMatthew 24:9-14 (New International Version)
Why is that to be expected?
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhat part of tens of thousands of persons having died as a result of transfused blood are you yet unable to comprehend?
what part of the right to self determination did you miss? what part of tens of thousands of persons having died as a result of transfused blood are you yet unable to comprehend? what part of trying to understand without judgement did you not perceive? what part of we have openly discussed out stance and don't care whether you agree with it or not that went over the top of your head?
What part of that statistic in isolation is not very meaningful are you yet unable to comprehend? Even if true, how would this statistic rate comparatively with the number of persons whose lives have been saved or prolonged as a result of blood transfusion?
Originally posted by galveston75That's right, it's all about you.
Matthew 24:9-14 (New International Version)
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, ...[text shortened]... will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.