Pro-Life?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the mere fact that you have attempted to utilise the emotive subject of blood and ............. implying that abortion is not an emotive subject?!
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 bloo ...[text shortened]... ss than murder, premeditated murder of innocents and
those who support it as morally culpable.

How is it any more despicable than accusing anybody who supports the pro-choice position of being a murderer? Simply because more innocents die from abortion than from the abhorrent strictures of your religion?

Frankly, having read the reasoning behind your faith's position on blood transfusions, I'm rather disgusted. How you can follow a faith which favours an interpretation of scripture over the life of even a single child is quite beyond my understanding. And to then attempt to claim the moral high-ground in the abortion/choice debate is just not credible, in my view.

Frankly, I think that that religion of yours has got your moral compass rather muddled.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
rubbish is refuse, to be discarded, of no use and we are talking of the 115,000 deaths
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.

You arguments is valid or not valid depending of you opinion of the value of life, not only of unborn people, but also about born people, like children, juveniles, and adults. If you don't respect the life for human lives after the birth, then you cannot possibly care about human lives before they are born.

So your principles of the blood transfusion matter is more important than life for you. And your principles of unborn people is more important than born people.
Doesn't make sense to me. I invalidate your opinions about abortions.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You arguments is valid or not valid depending of you opinion of the value of life, not only of unborn people, but also about born people, like children, juveniles, and adults. If you don't respect the life for human lives after the birth, then you cannot possibly care about human lives before they are born.

So your principles of the blood transfusion m ...[text shortened]... rtant than born people.
Doesn't make sense to me. I invalidate your opinions about abortions.

how is our stance on blood equivalent to killing 115,000 persons every day? That is
correct its a nonsense to state that it is and i wont be taking lessons in morality from
people like you who support it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
How is it any more despicable than accusing anybody who supports the pro-choice position of being a murderer? Simply because more innocents die from abortion than from the abhorrent strictures of your religion?

Frankly, having read the reasoning behind your faith's position on blood transfusions, I'm rather disgusted. How you can follow a faith w ...[text shortened]... ew.

Frankly, I think that that religion of yours has got your moral compass rather muddled.

you can state and believe what you want, it does not negate that fact that our stance
on blood, which is a personal decision, is not in any shape or form equivalent to the
premeditated murder of 115,000 innocents every single day mostly on the basis of
convenience.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you can state and believe what you want, it does not negate that fact that our stance
on blood, which is a personal decision, is not in any shape or form equivalent to the
premeditated murder of 115,000 innocents every single day mostly on the basis of
convenience.

Yes it is, both positions result in the unnecessary deaths of innocents. It's just a question of degree is all. Your position is basically equivalent to saying that a single murder is ok because it's not as bad as a hundred thousand murders.

edit - you keep saying this blood issue is a 'personal' decision, but the Watchtower Society calls it "a non-negotiable religious stand". That doesn't sound like an optional thing to me.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes it is, both positions result in the unnecessary deaths of innocents. It's just a question of degree is all. Your position is basically equivalent to saying that a single murder is ok because it's not as bad as a hundred thousand murders.

edit - you keep saying this blood issue is a 'personal' decision, but the Watchtower Society calls it "a non-negotiable religious stand". That doesn't sound like an optional thing to me.

No its not only a matter of degree, its a matter of morality, no one wants to be put in a
position where they are forced to choose, blood or life, do they? no one wants to find
out that their kid has leukaemia and the doctors are going to transfuse blood, do they?
These cases are not brought on by the will of the sufferer, circumstances have dictated
events, this is not the case with those killing innocents for convenience sake, they
have a choice in the matter. Its ludicrous to talk of these things in the same context,
they are totally unrelated.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not only a matter of degree, its a matter of morality, no one wants to be put in a
position where they are forced to choose, blood or life, do they? no one wants to find
out that their kid has leukaemia and the doctors are going to transfuse blood, do they?
These cases are not brought on by the will of the sufferer, circumstances have di ...[text shortened]... tter. Its ludicrous to talk of these things in the same context,
they are totally unrelated.

Of course it's not a position one would choose to be put into - one might legitimately ask why a faith which creates such a dilemma for a parent would exist at all, let alone prosper as yours has. It remains nevertheless true that people who did not have the luxury of choice themselves have died in consequence, as I'm sure you're aware. One murder or a hundred thousand, both options are morally reprehensible in my view.

Furthermore, you now speak only of abortions for the sake of convenience. I have already agreed with you that such an act is in my view unconscionable. It is ludicrous however to pretend that this is the main motivation behind all or even most abortions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that harms no one but me.

You have stated you wouldn't donate your blood even if it was the only option in saving someone's life. You would let someone die to save your own vanity. That would harm someone other than you.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Of course it's not a position one would choose to be put into - one might legitimately ask why a faith which creates such a dilemma for a parent would exist at all, let alone prosper as yours has. It remains nevertheless true that people who did not have the luxury of choice themselves have died in consequence, as I'm sure you're aware. One murder or ...[text shortened]... icrous however to pretend that this is the main motivation behind all or even most abortions.

As medical science progresses there are numerous techniques which vastly reduce the
need for blood, laser scalpels which cut and seal the vessels at the same time, cell
salvage machines which clean and reintroduce the blood back into the patient as the
operation proceeds, volume expansion in the case of sever blood loss, the use of
hormones and blood fractions such as Erythropoietin which stimulates the bodies own
production of red blood cells, the use of techniques like hypotensive anastasia which
reduces blood pressure and helps clotting during a haemorrhage. In America one can
go for bloodless surgery, bloodless heart surgery even.

As i have stated our stance is entirely different, we are not brought there by our own
will or some action on our part, this is not true of the abortionist.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You have stated you wouldn't donate your blood even if it was the only option in saving someone's life. You would let someone die to save your own vanity. That would harm someone other than you.

that's a nonsense, there is no guarantee that even after administering blood in your
hypothetical situation that the person would get well and if they were a fellow witness of
the most high God, they would not want nor accept transfused blood anyway, no
vanity, simply a strict adherence to Biblical principles.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As medical science progresses there are numerous techniques which vastly reduce the
need for blood, laser scalpels which cut and seal the vessels at the same time, cell
salvage machines which clean and reintroduce the blood back into the patient as the
operation proceeds, volume expansion in the case of sever blood loss, the use of
hormones a ...[text shortened]... brought there by our own
will or some action on our part, this is not true of the abortionist.

Future advances in medical science are irrelevant. You are expected to turn down life-saving procedures, and by extension elect the same for your offspring because of an interpretation of scripture! How is the free will to follow these strictures any different from the free will of the mother who opts for an abortion rather than a life of hardship? The result of both is the same, is it not? An innocent loses his or her life due to the choices of a parent?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
that's a nonsense, there is no guarantee that even after administering blood in your
hypothetical situation that the person would get well and if they were a fellow witness of
the most high God, they would not want nor accept transfused blood anyway, no
vanity, simply a strict adherence to Biblical principles.

It's not nonsense, it's the truth. You wouldn't donate blood under any circumstances, even if it was the only option in saving someone's life. You would let your fellow man die simply for your own selfish interests, and here you are lecturing people on 'morality'. It would be funny if it wasn't quite so tragic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
how is our stance on blood equivalent to killing 115,000 persons every day? That is
correct its a nonsense to state that it is and i wont be taking lessons in morality from
people like you who support it.

You value your JW principles more than life. So don't come here and tell others what's right and wrong. Your morals is nothing to brag about.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Future advances in medical science are irrelevant. You are expected to turn down life-saving procedures, and by extension elect the same for your offspring because of an interpretation of scripture! How is the free will to follow these strictures any different from the free will of the mother who opts for an abortion rather than a life of hardship? T ...[text shortened]... f both is the same, is it not? An innocent loses his or her life due to the choices of a parent?

pure hypothetical jive talk, you hypothesise about what might or might not happen in a
life or death situation, in the meantime by the end of this evening 115,000 human
beings will have forfeited the right to life, through no fault of their own, at the hands of
someone else. There is no comparison with our claim to the right of self determination
and you have no claim as far as children are concerned, its out with our jurisdiction,
not so with the abortionist.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You value your JW principles more than life. So don't come here and tell others what's right and wrong. Your morals is nothing to brag about.

You were the one pontificating from your room full of mirrors about what is right and
wrong, but you cannot tell the difference between the right to life and the right to self
determination, as if they were one and the same, EPIC FAIL.