- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedid the teenager have the right of self-determination and the exercise of the faculty?
did the teenager have the right of self-determination and the exercise of the faculty
of conscience? apparently as i recall, not only did he wish to express the right of
self determination and his faculty of conscience but that the courts of the land also
upheld his right of self determination and the human right to exercise his
conscience. ...[text shortened]... ow many persons have died as a consequence of reusing blood
transfusions, you utter hypocrite.
Of course, not. He was legally a child and, as such, the court retained parental authority over him.
that the courts of the land also
upheld his right of self determination and the human right to exercise his
conscience.
No. The court did not uphold a right to self-determination. Rights do not exist in Australian law except perhaps in limited cases such as the Victorian charter of rights, although this has no legislative force at all.
The court simply decided that it was in his best interest since a blood transfusion would cause considerable distress to him. It is for this very same reason that, for example, the same court has disregarded parents' wishes and allowed children to receive hormone therapy for gender reassignment. This is not about self-determination but about the best interests of the child.
Who the heck are you to tell another person what may be done with
his or her own body? what gives you the right to pass judgement upon them?
I don't understand. I never claimed any such right. Please indicate where I did.
My goodness how hypocritical of you, how
many persons in comparison have died as a result of receiving infected blood?
As you know, I have given blood and I know my blood is clean. I live happily knowing that people are out there whose lives have been saved by my blood.
i want you to compare that and make a
comparison of how many persons have died as a consequence of reusing blood
transfusions, you utter hypocrite.
As others have explained to you in the past, this is not the important point of contrast. What matters is how many people have died from not receiving blood transfusions compared to how many would have died without blood transfusions. Hundreds of millions of lives have been saved by blood transfusions, with only a minor fraction of infections. The pay off is much higher than the cost.
05 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kwe are clearly talking of a different case i was referring to a case in Canada where
[b]did the teenager have the right of self-determination and the exercise of the faculty?
Of course, not. He was legally a child and, as such, the court retained parental authority over him.
that the courts of the land also
upheld his right of self determination and the human right to exercise his
conscience.
No. The court did no nsfusions, with only a minor fraction of infections. The pay off is much higher than the cost.[/b]
the courts did uphold teenagers rights to self determination.
No i do not accept your statistical contortions, the comparison is not between how
many lives are saved, for you have called into question our morality therefore the
comparison is between how many persons have died as a consequence of applying
our standards of morality and yours, therefore i want to here you state how many
persons have died as a consequence of refusing blood transfusions with those who
accept intravenous blood transfusions, with those who practice homosexuality, with
those who are fornicators and with those who are drug users. I want to hear you
state it, how many. To the nearest million will do. If you refuse to answer, then i
will take it that you publicly admit that our standards of morality in all of these
areas are superior for we have as a direct consequence of applying them, saved
many more lives than would have been lost if those standards were abandoned.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe
we are clearly talking of a different case i was referring to a case in Canada where
the courts did uphold teenagers rights to self determination.
No i do not accept your statistical contortions, the comparison is not between how
many lives are saved, for you have called into question our morality therefore the
comparison is between how ma ...[text shortened]... lying them, saved
many more lives than would have been lost if those standards were abandoned.
comparison is between how many persons have died as a consequence of applying
our standards of morality and yours
That's a ridiculous point of comparison. Far more many people receive blood transfusions than there are JWs. So obviously, even with a small fraction of infections, the number will be significantly higher than the number of JWs who have died because of a lack of blood transfusions. I could just as well argue that people should never leave their home because the number of people who have died crossing the road is significantly higher than the number of agoraphobics who have died in their own homes. What matters though is that most people survive blood transfusions just as most people are not run over by cars while crossing streets. You seriously are a moron.
05 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kno its not ridiculous, you have pitted your standards of morality against ours, i say that
[b]the
comparison is between how many persons have died as a consequence of applying
our standards of morality and yours
That's a ridiculous point of comparison. Far more many people receive blood transfusions than there are JWs. So obviously, even with a small fraction of infections, the number will be significantly higher than the number of JWs ...[text shortened]... just as most people are not run over by cars while crossing streets. You seriously are a moron.[/b]
had persons desisted from blood transfusion, homosexuality, fornication and drug
abuse as advocated by our morality, there would have been at a very conservative
estimate, 30 million persons who could have been saved from HIV infection alone.
Your analogy is what is ridiculous, for there are millions of persons practising these
very things every day. You seriously are a total hypocrite, for with the same breath
you are chastising us for practising our beliefs when what you yourself are practising
has subjected millions of persons to a life of misery and in many instances death
through HIV infection. How many have been killed by your sense of morality, to the
nearest million will do!
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour organisations doctrine on blood transfusions was introduced in 1945, how many lives do you think have been saved worldwide using blood transfusions since then?
no its not ridiculous, you have pitted your standards of morality against ours, i say that
had persons desisted from blood transfusion, homosexuality, fornication and drug
abuse as advocated by our morality, there would have been at a very conservative
estimate, 30 million persons who could have been saved from HIV infection alone
. Your anal ...[text shortened]... fection. How many have been killed by your sense of morality, to the
nearest million will do!
05 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobi have no idea, but i have a feeling your going to tell me. 🙂
Your organisations doctrine on blood transfusions was introduced in 1945, how many lives do you think have been saved worldwide using blood transfusions since then?
05 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't the the exact number worldwide but 5 million blood transfusions are given each year in the US compared with the estimated 600,000 people who have died with AIDS since 1981.
i have no idea, but i have a feeling your going to tell me. 🙂
I think it's fair to say that in the 66yrs since your organisations doctrine was introduced hundreds of millions of lives have been saved worldwide through the use of blood transfusions.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI certainly hope you hold no job position which entails any cost-effective analysis. Imagine that you were part of a federal department responsible for pharmaceutical products. A drug is being proposed as a medical remedy for a fatal disease. Without it, a sufferer of this disease would definitely die; with it, there is a fractional chance of death. The most obvious and intuitive criteria for approval would be whether more live with the drug than die without it. Obvious.
no its not ridiculous, you have pitted your standards of morality against ours, i say that
had persons desisted from blood transfusion, homosexuality, fornication and drug
abuse as advocated by our morality, there would have been at a very conservative
estimate, 30 million persons who could have been saved from HIV infection alone.
Your anal ...[text shortened]... fection. How many have been killed by your sense of morality, to the
nearest million will do!
Now basically, your response would basically be -- 'well, very few people have died from herbal tea. So it is better to take herbal tea instead rather than take this drug because more people will die from this drug than from herbal tea'. Can you see how ridiculous that type of reasoning is? It is an absurd point of comparison. The only relevant point of comparison is how many survive compared to how many die. The same for blood transfusions.
05 May 11
Revelation 12:10 (Contemporary English Version)
Then I heard a voice from heaven shout, "Our God has shown his saving power, and his kingdom has come! God's own Chosen One has shown his authority. Satan accused our people in the presence of God day and night. Now he has been thrown out!
Luke 18:9-14 (Contemporary English Version)
9Jesus told a story to some people who thought they were better than others and who looked down on everyone else:
10Two men went into the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood over by himself and prayed, "God, I thank you that I am not greedy, dishonest, and unfaithful in marriage like other people. And I am really glad that I am not like that tax collector over there. 12I go without eating for two days a week, and I give you one tenth of all I earn." 13The tax collector stood off at a distance and did not think he was good enough even to look up toward heaven. He was so sorry for what he had done that he pounded his chest and prayed, "God, have pity on me! I am such a sinner."
14Then Jesus said, "When the two men went home, it was the tax collector and not the Pharisee who was pleasing to God. If you put yourself above others, you will be put down. But if you humble yourself, you will be honored."
What manner of man are you?
Kelly
05 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou have no idea how many persons lives were at risk, you have no idea what those
I don't the the exact number worldwide but 5 million blood transfusions are given each year in the US compared with the estimated 600,000 people who have died with AIDS since 1981.
I think it's fair to say that in the 66yrs since your organisations doctrine was introduced hundreds of millions of lives have been saved worldwide through the use of blood transfusions.
transfusions were for, you have not even any idea whether those persons would have
recovered without a transfusion, in other words, its a pile of conjecture. are you
willing to state that if persons adopt our moral stance, as far as transfusion,
homosexuality, fornication and drug abuse are concerned they would have spared
some thirty or more million persons worldwide no small measure of heartache with
regard to these practices and the bitterness of the effects, no i didn't think so!
05 May 11
Originally posted by Conrau KNo all i can see is why you cannot admit, that if a person adopted our stance, they
I certainly hope you hold no job position which entails any cost-effective analysis. Imagine that you were part of a federal department responsible for pharmaceutical products. A drug is being proposed as a medical remedy for a fatal disease. Without it, a sufferer of this disease would definitely die; with it, there is a fractional chance of death. The mos ...[text shortened]... t of comparison is how many survive compared to how many die. The same for blood transfusions.
would never have contracted HIV through infected blood, they would never have
contracted HIV through homosexual activity, they would never have contracted HIV
through extra marital relationships, they would never have contracted HIV through
intravenous drug use, are you denying that this is the case. I shall repeat the question
so that you will not be able to evade it, are you denying that this is the case.
05 May 11
Originally posted by KellyJayi am a man like any other. Christ himself accused and exposed the actions of so called
Revelation 12:10 (Contemporary English Version)
Then I heard a voice from heaven shout, "Our God has shown his saving power, and his kingdom has come! God's own Chosen One has shown his authority. Satan accused our people in the presence of God day and night. Now he has been thrown out!
Luke 18:9-14 (Contemporary English Version)
9Jesus told a sto ...[text shortened]... But if you humble yourself, you will be honored."
What manner of man are you?
Kelly
religious persons of his time, are you stating that it is unchristian to do so? No? well
then, give it up!
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry Rob but blood transfusions save countless lives each year, if you don't want to take your blinkers off and admit it that's your problem and not mine.
you have no idea how many persons lives were at risk, you have no idea what those
transfusions were for, you have not even any idea whether those persons would have
recovered without a transfusion, in other words, its a pile of conjecture. are you
willing to state that if persons adopt our moral stance, as far as transfusion,
homosexuality, ...[text shortened]... tache with
regard to these practices and the bitterness of the effects, no i didn't think so!
As for your stance regarding transfusions, homosexuality, fornication and drug abuse. I've already outlined my thoughts on transfusions, i don't think lives will be saved by adopting your stance. As for homosexuality and fornication, do you really think you can stop people being gay and stop them from having sex outside of marriage, no it's ridiculous. As for your stance regarding drug abuse, i think that falls in line with most peoples views.
Do you know what the biggest killers worldwide were in 2002 according to data collected by the WHO..................? Cardiovascular disease and infectious and parasitic diseases accounted for 52% of deaths worldwide, HIV/AIDS accounted for just less then 5%.
Do you not think it would be more of a noble cause for you organisation to spend it's time and money trying to limit the deaths of the 52%?!
05 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobsooo you have actually no idea on whether or not alternatives were made available to
Sorry Rob but blood transfusions save countless lives each year, if you don't want to take your blinkers off and admit it that's your problem and not mine.
As for your stance regarding transfusions, homosexuality, fornication and drug abuse. I've already outlined my thoughts on transfusions, i don't think lives will be saved by adopting your stance. for you organisation to spend it's time and money trying to limit the deaths of the 52%?!
those persons, mmm, and no idea whether or not persons would have survived had
they been offered alternatives and no idea what they were used for, nor any idea of
those persons who die as a consequence of the complications ensuing after receiving
blood when an alternative was not available, interesting, have you researched the
subject? do you know what alternatives are available? have you even considered that
there may be alternatives in almost every instance including that of trauma? Yes i do
think it would be a noble cause that is why we have published and made freely
available a plethora of information regarding cleanliness and highlighting the dangers
of drinking contaminated water. In fact one of my best friends , a witness from
Ghana was here studying in Glasgow university on behalf of the government trying
to synthesise chemical compounds to try to find a cure for various diseases.
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLike I said earlier, I think grace and mercy is lost on you at least with your
i am a man like any other. Christ himself accused and exposed the actions of so called
religious persons of his time, are you stating that it is unchristian to do so? No? well
then, give it up!
current mindset. I agree with you on this point, I will give it up with you on
this.
Kelly