mjmooney Posted July 23, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted July 23, 2012 McCall said he had known cases where Jehovah's Witnesses who accepted blood transfusions had been disowned by their parents and church.Double result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So the tragedy in Colorado happened because America has lost its fear of hell ? ( Bromamerican ) I thought it was because some idiot with a gun lost it ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So the tragedy in Colorado happened because America has lost its fear of hell ? ( Bromamerican ) I thought it was because some idiot with a gun lost it ?! Nah it was the losing the fear of hell thing. The gunman was just a conduit for God's wrath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 So the tragedy in Colorado happened because America has lost its fear of hell ? ( Bromamerican ) I thought it was because some idiot with a gun lost it ?! Nah it was the losing the fear of hell thing. The gunman was just a conduit for God's wrath. Thanks for streightening me out on that one.I got it really wrong,did`nt I ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Post about JWs and blood transfusions. It goes without saying that these people are morons of the highest degree, however the blame in this situation lies squarely with the governing body of JWs. JWs, like most religious folk, are largely uneducated and put their faith in an organisation known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WBTS). Unfortunately, this is an organisation that has repeatedly lied to it's members regarding all sorts of different topics, blood transfusions being no different. A simple glance at their website will reveal plenty of literature regarding blood and God's supposed stance on it. This literature invariably contains quotes from doctors and other medical professionals that seem to back up the WBTS's claims, and the articles also make some very valid points about the dangers of blood transfusions (infection, allergic reactions etc.), however the information used to back up these claims is always around 30 years out of date, and many of their points haven't been valid since then due to advances in infection screening etc. It's hard to blame individual JWs in these kind of situations because the organisation they put their faith in is so, so dishonest. I'm not sure of the medical law in Australia, but in this country the operation would almost certainly proceed as the best interests of the girl would override the need for consent from her idiot parents, hopefully it's the same over there. Don't hold your breath for a reply from Julie, this is a topic that a lot of JWs feel very awkward discussing as the hideous outcome of the doctrine makes for very awkward conversation. Still, they are in 'The Truth' so what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If you look at all the different relegions you come up with some really silly stuff,like. No meat on friday,dont wear makeup,no blood transfusions,dont eat ham, etc etc etc.If there really is a god then he must have been very busy making up all these silly rules.Makes you wonder where he got the time to make/invent adam and eve ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 God works in mysterious ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Don't hold your breath for a reply from Julie, this is a topic that a lot of JWs feel very awkward discussing as the hideous outcome of the doctrine makes for very awkward conversation. She's talked about it a lot of times before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 God works in mysterious ways Rather coincidentally, Yahweh seems to operate in exactly the same way that the universe does. With total indifference. Funny that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Nevermind, God works in mysterious ways!!!!! Repeat times 10. This is quite hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Don't hold your breath for a reply from Julie, this is a topic that a lot of JWs feel very awkward discussing as the hideous outcome of the doctrine makes for very awkward conversation. She's talked about it a lot of times before. She's more than happy to talk about the benefits of bloodless medicine, or how Dr X and Surgeon Y absolutely LOVE to work with JWs, or how JWs are driving the future of medicine with their bloodless techniques, but when it comes to the nitty gritty of it - the simple, cold reality that parents are condemning their children to death by refusing them live saving treatment - she is curiously silent. The simple and obvious reality is this - refusing a child life-saving medical treatment is psychopathic and evil, regardless of the reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Come to think of it, that's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Post about JWs and blood transfusions. I'm not sure of the medical law in Australia Come again? :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Whoops, geography fail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 23, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted July 23, 2012 Oh come on, everybody knows that Australia and New Zealand are basically the same place. (ducks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 isn't new zealand just part of greater australia, you know, like scotland is just part of great britain? back on the bad bad jehova's witnesses (which I'd really prefer not to get personalised down to individuals), what about organ donation generally? Wales is going to go 'opt out' instead of 'opt in', so if you die in a freak orange, wardrobe and chord accident in Wales they'll presume they can do a quick organ harvest. Everyone ok with that? It saves the lives of little kiddies. (I am ok with it for what it's worth) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 23, 2012 Organ donation should be opt in. Those organs are not anyone elses to give away. The state should not be allowed to make the assumption that it can do as it likes with it's citizens bodies. I may or may not opt in to a donor scheme. I would definitely opt out of a forced scheme on principle alone. Not really religious though. As for Jehovah's Witnesses denying children life saving blood transfusions - evil. It's the kind of thing that should be a crime, denying a child a life for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 But surely if you're dead, don't believe in whatever and nobody is making a profit, why shouldn't they use your bits to save a life. Surely you're just drawing your line in a slightly different place (which is fine), but then declaring the line somebody else drew as 'evil'. OK, denying a transfusion is undeniably bad, but surely denying a heart or a kidney is similarly somewhere on the bad scale? fwiw, once I'm dead they can do what they like with it as long as nobody claims 'rights' over anything or tries to turn a profit or a commercial advantage or gives bits to Damian Hirst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 23, 2012 Why shouldn't they? Because they assume that because I didn't say no, I said yes. The principle of the thing is shocking. My body is mine. I will decide what happens to it. Not anyone else, even after I am gone. It's fundamentally different to the child being denied a blood transfusion. If an adult wants to roll the dice and refuse a transfusion, they're fools but their choice, so be it. A child is unlikely to be able to make that decision knowing the consequences. It's down to the individual being able to make a considered choice. The child is either unable, or incapable of doing that, to deny it a life is evil. If I choose to not donate my property, that is my call. The state deciding that me not saying no is me saying yes, is a different and wholly wrong matter. The individual is master of his fate, and in the event that the individual is unable to make a considered choice, the right thing is to maintain life and give then the chance to be masters of their own fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 or gives bits to Damian Hirst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts