14 Feb 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobthat harms no one but me.
No it doesn't. You wouldn't give a blood transfusion even if that procedure was the only option to save that persons life. If the only two options were your blood or death, you would choose death. You would do so for your own selfish interests.
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by SwissGambityes that's about the sum of it, materialists must be sucked up into a huge vacuum and
This is a very productive debate.
"You deny blood transfusions to innocent children and callously let them die, you god-bothering monster!"
"You chop up babies in the womb and suck them out with a vacuum, you sick materialist monster!"
Ad nauseam.
deposited on an island somewhere where their moral relativism can only work to harm
themselves!
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI fail to see the relevance of UK law. You follow a religion which teaches that it is wrong to accept a transfusion even if the consequence is death yes? Thankfully the law may step in to protect innocents, but this doesn't negate the fact that it's interference is necessary.
in the United Kingdom it is the Law that if a consultant wishes to administer blood to a
minor they may do so, your assertion therefore as far as i am aware has no basis in
the United Kingdom, nor in Canada nor anywhere else where the rights of minors are
protected by Law. Clearly as someone who supports abortion, you are unconcerned
with the rights of children, especially those who would wish to have the right to be born.
Where did you get the idea that I was somebody who supports abortion? You make this assumption simply because I'm pointing out what I perceive as a certain amount of hypocrisy in your position?
14 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatno hypocrisy in my position, self determination is a matter for the individual only, your
I fail to see the relevance of UK law. You follow a religion which teaches that it is wrong to accept a transfusion even if the consequence is death yes? Thankfully the law may step in to protect innocents, but this doesn't negate the fact that it's interference is necessary.
Where did you get the idea that I was somebody who supports abortion? Yo ...[text shortened]... y because I'm pointing out what I perceive as a certain amount of hypocrisy in your position?
position amounts to this, you may try to find alternative treatment for your kid but
115,000 children never even have the chance to be kids therefore that makes you
equally reprehensible, i dont bloody think so.
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI know what you JWers have told me, and I've googled myself in the subject.
rubbish, you dont know anything about British law and minors.
I ask you: What is rubbish? What is specific for British JWers? And further: Do you imply that JW from abroad Britain aren't real JWers? That the JW principles aren't the same for them?
14 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasrubbish is refuse, to be discarded, of no use and we are talking of the 115,000 deaths
I know what you JWers have told me, and I've googled myself in the subject.
I ask you: What is rubbish? What is specific for British JWers? And further: Do you imply that JW from abroad Britain aren't real JWers? That the JW principles aren't the same for them?
due to abortion, not our stance on blood, but its simply the level that will be resorted to
in order to find something then so be it, rather interesting how the focus of argument
has shifted.
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain, you appear to assume that I'm a supporter of abortion. As a general rule, I'm not. Neither do I support a faith which has been and continues to be culpable in denying life-saving medical treatments to minors.
no hypocrisy in my position, self determination is a matter for the individual only, your
position amounts to this, you may try to find alternative treatment for your kid but
115,000 children never even have the chance to be kids therefore that makes you
equally reprehensible, i dont bloody think so.
14 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatyou are talking nonsense as i have already stated in almost all civilised countries that i
Again, you appear to assume that I'm a supporter of abortion. As a general rule, I'm not. Neither do I support a faith which has been and continues to be culpable in denying life-saving medical treatments to minors.
can think of the rights of minors are protected by law, your argument has therefore no
basis has it, we are culpable of nothing, for the rights of a hospital cannot be ignored,
why you fail to understand this i have no idea, but if its the best that you an do, then its
the best that you can do, more tabloid nonsense with no basis in actual practice or
reality.
14 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I said, your faith decrees a position which requires the intervention of the law in order to protect minors. Of course I understand that the law may intervene, but do you not think it wrong that this is necessary? To state that the rights of a hospital 'cannot be ignored' (which isn't true anyway) doesn't remove the fact that in protecting a minor in this manner the medical staff are going against the strictures of your religion. And, as I'm sure you are aware, there are cases where the law has not been able to intervene. You, as a follower and champion of this faith, by your own logic must accept a share of the responsibility for those deaths, yes?
you are talking nonsense as i have already stated in almost all civilised countries that i
can think of the rights of minors are protected by law, your argument has therefore no
basis has it, we are culpable of nothing, for the rights of a hospital cannot be ignored,
why you fail to understand this i have no idea, but if its the best that you ...[text shortened]...
the bes that you can do, more tabloid nonsense with no basis in actual practice or
reality.
14 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwrong, the whole basis if your argument is that we are denying minors medical
As I said, your faith decrees a position which requires the intervention of the law in order to protect minors. Of course I understand that the law may intervene, but do you not think it wrong that this is necessary? To state that the rights of a hospital 'cannot be ignored' (which isn't true anyway) doesn't remove the fact that in protecting s faith, by your own logic must accept a share of the responsibility for those deaths, yes?
treatment on the basis of a religious belief making us culpable of something, when in
fact the reality is that we have no jurisdiction over what a hospital does with a minor, in
effect, negating anything we may think or do. That is the reality, its irrelevant whether
i think this is good bad or anything thing else, that is the reality.
All Jehovahs witnesses must decide for themselves, it is their personal decision and I
will not subject their consciences to mine, they have every right to decide what is done
with their own bodies.
14 Feb 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs it, or is it not the case that the religion which you follow expects it's adherents to refuse this form of medical treatment even if the consequence is death?
wrong, the whole basis if your argument is that we are denying minors medical
treatment on the basis of a religious belief making us culpable of something, when in
fact the reality is that we have no jurisdiction over what a hospital does with a minor, in
effect, negating anything we may think or do. That is the reality, its irrelevant whether ...[text shortened]... their consciences to mine, they have every right to decide what is done
with their own bodies.
Are you, or are you not, aware of any of the numerous cases from around the world of JW parents being charged with crimes consequent to refusing the opportunity of such medical intervention toward their children?
Do you or do you not sense a whiff of hypocrisy in making accusations of murder towards those who advocate choice in the abortion debate while insisting on your innocence in the part of the deaths of those innocents referred to in the second paragraph above?
14 Feb 12
5 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI have said all i am willing to say on the matter you may draw any inference you wish,
Is it, or is it not the case that the religion which you follow expects it's adherents to refuse this form of medical treatment even if the consequence is death?
Are you, or are you not, aware of any of the numerous cases from around the world of JW parents being charged with crimes consequent to refusing the opportunity of such medical intervent ...[text shortened]... nocence in the part of the deaths of those innocents referred to in the second paragraph above?
its not an issue for me or any other Jehovah's Witnesses that i know of. I respect
everyone rights to decide what is done with their own body through the claim of self
determination. There is no hypocrisy on our part as the individual is at liberty to obey
the dictates of their conscience and no one can say anything to the contrary.
14 Feb 12
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFine. Perhaps, though, you might now consider a less emotive form of argument against the pro-choice brigade than accusations of collective murder?
I have said all i am willing to say on the matter you may draw any inference you wish,
its not an issue for me or any other Jehovah's Witnesses that i know of. I respect
everyone rights to decide what is done with their own body through the claim of self
determination. There is no hypocrisy on our part as the individual is at liberty to obey ...[text shortened]... equivalent of
denying life to 115,000 persons every day, as i stated before, i dont think so.
For what it's worth, I entirely agree that an abortion simply for convenience is wholly morally reprehensible, but in my albeit limited experience the decision is often not so clear cut.
14 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatthe mere fact that you have attempted to utilise the emotive subject of blood and
Fine. Perhaps, though, you might now consider a less emotive form of argument against the pro-choice brigade than accusations of collective murder?
For what it's worth, I entirely agree that an abortion simply for convenience is wholly morally reprehensible, but in my albeit limited experience the decision is often not so clear cut.
minors in an argument about abortion is probably one of the most despicable attempts
to subvert a discussion that i have come across so far on this site, as if our
stance on blood is the equivalent of denying life to 115,000 persons every day, as i
stated before, i dont think so.
I consider abortion as nothing less than murder, premeditated murder of innocents and
those who support it as morally culpable.