21 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterno one allows anyone to die, are you yet unaware that in the united kingdom , euthanasia, either assisted or otherwise is illegal? man you are probably the second most ignorant person i have had the misfortune to correspond with in my short years upon the planet, either contribute something with content or stop spamming the forum with nothingness! you were asked for example what you know about the practice of giving and receiving blood transfusions, nothing! you were asked what alternatives were available? nothing? you were asked what self determination meant? nothing? your comments are just the amalgamation of the centre of a very very large doughnut, emotionally charged, devoid of reason and fit for the front of any tabloid you care to mention. I am fully justified in terming them, sensationalistic, ignorant, etc etc , for until you produce anything to the contrary, its self evident that's really what they amount to and no amount of vain protestation on your part can change can that fact. Spammer!
It is an affront to humanity and decency that you (JW's) would allow someone to die rather than permit them a blood transfusion.
The fact that you consider me stating this as being "spamming", "ignorant" and "sensationalist", or that I failed to obey you first time you ranted at me, is comically irrelevant and merely another effort to distract the casual reader from the horrible truth.
21 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kbecause as i have pointed out, in the case of plasma it can be split up into many different constituent parts and therefore may no longer be viewed as whole blood. There is nothing bizarre about it. I must also point out that many fractions are derived from animal blood (immunisations for example) and some are recombinant (purely synthetically produced). My guess is that as medical science progresses, more and more of these fractions shall be synthetically produced.
Blood fractions do not substitute for whole blood transfusions. Plasma, the main source of blood fractions, does not contain any blood cells. There are many circumstances in which blood cells are required. A man in a car accident, with massive blood loss, needs full blood. Plasma would not supply him the necessary oxygen-carriers. A lymphoma sufferer would ...[text shortened]... cessary for life and is a major component of blood, why doesn't the same moral reasoning apply?
A man in a car accident, with massive blood loss, needs full blood??? no necessarily for the technique of volume expansion can be utilised, in which the lost volume can be replaced by another solution. Please consider the following.
Volume replacement can be accomplished without using whole blood or blood plasma.Various nonblood fluids are effective volume expanders. The simplest is saline (salt) solution, which is both inexpensive and compatible with our blood. There are also fluids with special properties, such as dextran, Haemaccel, and lactated Ringer's solution. Hetastarch (HES) is a newer volume expander, and "it can be safely recommended for those [burn] patients who object to blood products." (Journal of Burn Care & Rehabilitation, January/February 1989) Such fluids have definite advantages. "Crystalloid solutions [such as normal saline and lactated Ringer's solution], Dextran and HES are relatively nontoxic and inexpensive, readily available, can be stored at room temperature, require no compatibility testing and are free of the risk of transfusion-transmitted disease." —Blood Transfusion Therapy —A Physician's Handbook, 1989.
"Some authors have stated that hemoglobin values as low as 2 to 2.5 gm./100ml. may be acceptable. . . . A healthy person may tolerate a 50 percent loss of red blood cell mass and be almost entirely asymptomatic if blood loss occurs over a period of time." —Techniques of Blood Transfusion, 1982.
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KOh your not reading the post other wise you would know the answers. Robbie and myself have answered these already. Are we just totally waisting our time? Must be or else you just don't care to know our stand.
You will have to clarify. I do not know what the JWs practice. Does the commandment to abstain from blood include animal blood or only refer to blood transfusions?
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75Lol, no black puddings! ( i dunno if you have them in the States, maybe called blood sausage or something) i never liked them anyway!
Oh your not reading the post other wise you would know the answers. Robbie and myself have answered these already. Are we just totally waisting our time? Must be or else you just don't care to know our stand.
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes the blood sausages, boudin, are popular in the Louisiana part of the country. One has to be careful when in that area. Yuck!!!!!
Lol, no black puddings! ( i dunno if you have them in the States, maybe called blood sausage or something) i never liked them anyway!
21 Sep 10
Little children?
"Forty-eight pediatric open heart surgical procedures were performed with bloodless techniques regardless of surgical complexity." The children were as small as 10.3 pounds (4.7 kg). "Because of consistent success in Jehovah's Witnesses and the fact that blood transfusion carries a risk of serious complications, we are currently performing most of our pediatric cardiac operations without transfusion." —Circulation, September 1984.
21 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75awe man, yuck indeed! we call it black pudding! i once saw them make it, had all this stuff in a big container and then they poured in lots of blood, pigs blood i think it was. Yuckety yuck! i always wanted to go to Louisiana 🙂
Yes the blood sausages, boudin, are popular in the Louisiana part of the country. One has to be careful when in that area. Yuck!!!!!
21 Sep 10
3 edits
Info on blood substitutes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitutes
http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw146.html
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/43/9/1724
If one will type in such things as "Blood substitues" you will find more info then you can read in a week. There is plenty of this info to help see there is no reason for blood transfusions.
21 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayFor one, I wasn't "suggesting" anything. If you reread my post, you'll notice that I was merely asking you a question that would help clarify your position. So if anyone has a "warped brain", it is someone who'd pitch a hissy fit based on his own erroneous inferences.
Do you see me saying it is okay with parents doing that, no!
I've been very plain about my point, you suggesting I've okayed sex, torture,
and murder of children....I've never said anything remotely close to that, the only
thing I've been suggesting is that you don't force someone against their will to
either do or not do something lightly. I've been co ...[text shortened]... hat,
only your warped brain has taken my words and twisted them into those things.
Kelly
I'll take your response to be "No". That you would not also "fail to see why everyone here [would be] upset" with parents who torture their children, have sex with their children, murder their children, etc.
As such I take it that you would not fail to see why everyone here would be upset with a parent who would murder their child, but do fail to see why everyone here is upset with a parent who would deny their child a medical procedure necessary to the child's life which is tantamount to murder. In both cases, the child is dead and the parent is responsible. Your position is logically inconsistent.
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you are interested in understanding why someone might take the two cases to differ in permissibility status, you should look for possible reasons one might have to think there are morally relevant differences between the two cases. You keep repeating that both are human-life-disaffirming. Okay, they may share such a feature, but there are other considerations that factor. For example, what are the psychological capacities in play for the human life in each case? In the case of the child, you have a conscious human entity with interests and projects, with the capacities for rationality, the capacity to suffer, etc. In the case of the early fetus, you have a human entity with no mentality. So, even though they are both human life (as you keep pointing out over and over), there are significant differences that I think are morally relevant. You can keep telling me that I am being inconsistent because, as you keep pointing out, "it is all human life". But then you will just keep missing the same point: I am not committed to some mere species criterion for moral considerability or personhood.
It is all human life, the protest against the belief about blood transfusions has
been because of the possible lack of care toward human life, yet this sliding
scale of value being applied to justify or over look what we allow in mass is by far
much worse. I don't see the same people complaining about that as I do blood
transfusions and I have seen a co ...[text shortened]... ere we don't in one case, why complain about someone who has another
line else where?
Kelly
22 Sep 10
An insight to God's view of a fetus: Deliberately to induce abortion or miscarriage by artificial means, by the use of drugs, or by medical operation, the sole purpose of which is to avoid the birth of an unwanted child, is an act of high crime in the sight of God. Life as a precious gift from God is sacred. Hence God’s law to Moses protected the life of an unborn baby against more than criminal abortion, for if in a fracas between men a pregnant woman suffered an accident fatal to her or the child, “then you must give soul for soul.” (Ex 21:22-25) Of course, before applying that penalty, the circumstances and degree of deliberateness were taken into consideration by the judges. (Compare Nu 35:22-24, 31.) But emphasizing the seriousness of any deliberate attempt to cause injury, Dr. J. Glenn comments: “The viable embryo in the uterus IS a human individual, and therefore destroying it, is a violation of the sixth commandment.”—The Bible and Modern Medicine, 1963, p. 176.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI acknowledged that in many states, the parents may not have the legal right to deny a blood transfusion (assuming they take the child to the hospital in the first place.) If you read my post, you would have noticed this in the first sentence. The issue however is that children will be brainwashed to believe that blood transfusions are morally impermissible. The parents are still responsible for that death if their adult son refuses a transfusion.
we are not talking about self determination in the case of children as its now been pointed out numerous times, we have absolutely no jurisdiction in the case of children, your objections are once again unfounded and ill conceived and ignorant of even the meanest principles. Once again a post without content based on nothing but a purely hypothetica ...[text shortened]... thousands of children through horrific acts of paedophilia, your comments are bold words indeed!
I am not sure why you mention Catholic priests. I no longer profess the Catholic religion and I have never been a priest. My condemnation of pedophilia is very explicit. Why do you mention it? Do you think that immorality elsewhere exempts your organisation from criticism?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75I can't find your answer. Why can't you just repost it? Do you abstain from all blood or is it only blood transfusions? It is not clear to me at all. Your last answer was just evasive.
Oh your not reading the post other wise you would know the answers. Robbie and myself have answered these already. Are we just totally waisting our time? Must be or else you just don't care to know our stand.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiebecause as i have pointed out, in the case of plasma it can be split up into many different constituent parts and therefore may no longer be viewed as whole blood. There is nothing bizarre about it. I must also point out that many fractions are derived from animal blood (immunisations for example) and some are recombinant (purely synthetically produced). My guess is that as medical science progresses, more and more of these fractions shall be synthetically produced.
because as i have pointed out, in the case of plasma it can be split up into many different constituent parts and therefore may no longer be viewed as whole blood. There is nothing bizarre about it. I must also point out that many fractions are derived from animal blood (immunisations for example) and some are recombinant (purely synthetically prod ...[text shortened]... ic if blood loss occurs over a period of time." —Techniques of Blood Transfusion, 1982.
I am still not convinced. I think firstly it is bizarre that you say that some fractions are derived from animal blood (surely animal blood comes under the same prohibition?) Secondly, it might not be whole blood anymore but one is hardly 'abstaining from blood' when one receives a substantial component of blood.
Volume replacement can be accomplished without using whole blood or blood plasma.Various nonblood fluids are effective volume expanders. The simplest is saline (salt) solution, which is both inexpensive and compatible with our blood.
As I pointed out, however, none of these are oxygen-carriers. If a man sustains significant blood loss, giving him a saline solution would not help. It would exacerbate his condition. The blood count would decrease further and his extremities would begin to degenerate from oxygen generation. Do you know anything about medical science?
As a donor, I know from personal experience that this research is wrong. When I donate full blood or plasma, I feel weak for the rest of the day and my muscles are very tight and heavy. After donating, I receive 500ml of saline solution. I have experienced very little difference when receiving saline. Some people may be asymptomatic. In my experience, most are not. Many people require blood transfusions.