- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLast time I donated blood, there was a woman who had previously received a donation and simply wanted to thank those donating. She had been a cancer sufferer, was a mother of three and had required many volumes of blood during the course of her treatment. Are you saying that this was morally wrong?
i hope you dont mind me saying so but your statement is an inaccuracy me thinks, for the 'life', is in the blood, 'soul', is an ambiguous term in this instance, for we hold that the so called 'soul', does not transcend death, it simply refers to the entire being, human or animal. Man became a 'soul', in that he was infused with the breath of life, b ...[text shortened]... God, he being the originator of life.
excellent book keeping illustration though 🙂
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI pointed out that for me it is human life
So for them it is blood transfusions, I pointed out that for me it is human life
and abortion, for you it could be something else, what credentials could there be?
You and I are no different than the next guy, yet the next guy has core beliefs
that are different than ours, so why is it that our views should be forced upon
them? I again do not agree with ...[text shortened]... untry
people's conscious are more of a hindrance than something to be worried about.
Kelly
and abortion,
do you believe abortion should be made illegal? because there are many who disagree with you. I Guess if we make that illegal, we should make blood transfusions illegal because the JW's are apposed to them, right?
I think forcing someone to honestly go
against their conscious isn’t something that should be done lightly even it is done
at a high cost, yet it seems that isn't the case more and more in this country
people's conscious are more of a hindrance than something to be worried about.
again, what if someone has no problem with abortion?
19 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhy are you asking me what is morally acceptable for another person? are you unaware of the exercise of conscience? why should my conscience be judged by another?
Last time I donated blood, there was a woman who had previously received a donation and simply wanted to thank those donating. She had been a cancer sufferer, was a mother of three and had required many volumes of blood during the course of her treatment. Are you saying that this was morally wrong?
19 Sep 10
4 edits
Originally posted by duecerFrom my perspective you end a human life each time an abortion is done with
[b]I pointed out that for me it is human life
and abortion,
do you believe abortion should be made illegal? because there are many who disagree with you. I Guess if we make that illegal, we should make blood transfusions illegal because the JW's are apposed to them, right?
I think forcing someone to honestly go
against their conscious isn’t s an something to be worried about.
again, what if someone has no problem with abortion?[/b]
success, a few times when they are not you can get a live birth. From the stand
point of allowing or not allowing a blood transfusions that is a personal choice,
from the perspective of the pro-choice crowd why are those choices not honored?
It isn't like blood transfusions take away more lives than abortions do! Either we
have the right to make choices that affect ourselves and our children or we do not.
I'm not for making blood transfusions illegal for anyone, but I'm against forcing
them on to people that do not want them for their families or themselves. As far
as I'm concern, abortions will take place if they are legal or not, it is the value of
life that is more important to me than the law. If we are not holding human life
up as something sacred it just becomes a matter of convenience with no value at
all, which goes way beyond the debate of abortion.
Kelly
19 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is a line I didn't think you'd cross, as I would not either; however, you and
It is a line I didn't think you'd cross, as I would not either; however, you and
others here are also putting pressure on others for their lines that they would not
cross. At what point do these lines become important enough to honor? It seems
we all feel there are some, but others here may have said, "My kids are more
important to me than others!” and ther has parental authority over your kids, no
matter if you agree with them or not?
Kelly
others here are also putting pressure on others for their lines that they would not
cross. At what point do these lines become important enough to honor?...I would not refuse my child's life due to a blood transfusion, but who am I to tell
another their beliefs and standards are not honorable since they are not like
mine? At some point we are all going to die and we all have to live with the
choices we make, so again who are you to tell another their value system isn’t
worth while enough to honor?
You really need to rethink this. There are lines that I would think you believe should not be allowed to be crossed. That you would "tell another their value system isn’t worth while enough to honor". Consider a parent who beats his child, uses his child for sex, murders his child, etc.
What's really at issue here is the welfare of the child.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk, so, using your conscience, do you think that it was morally impermissible for this mother suffering cancer to receive blood transfusions? Would you in a similar situation receive blood transfusions. If your wife decided to receive a blood donation in this situation, would you respect this as a legitimate judgment of conscience?
why are you asking me what is morally acceptable for another person? are you unaware of the exercise of conscience? why should my conscience be judged by another?
I am unsure why you invoke conscience in this case. Obviously every moral decision involves the conscience and for the most part others should respect the primacy of that conscience. What I don't understand is why, then, your organisation bans blood transfusions. If conscience has primacy, does that mean your organisation no longer cares whether its members receive transfusions?
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, I respect you. I know you're a good guy. But this is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking I'm talking about. We have the right to make some decisions for our children. We do not have the right to make other decisions. We have the right to decide where our children go to church and school. We have the right to decide how best to morally educate our children. But even these rights are tempered; they are subject to constraints that derive from the welfare of our children. My rights as a parent do not license me to harm my child, or to allow easily preventable harm to come to my child, for the sake of some crazy religious belief. Where there are rights there are obligations, and we fail in our obligations as parents if we sacrifice our children on the altar of doctrinal purity. Especially when the doctrine in question is simply absurd.
Either we have the right to make choices that affect ourselves and our children or we do not.
20 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe real problem is in determining when "human life" begins. That is a debate that theology cannot answer. The other major question is in preservation of life. If a pregnant woman will die unless she aborts, do we simply allow both mother and fetus to die, or do we preserve as much life as possible?
From my perspective you end a human life each time an abortion is done with
success, a few times when they are not you can get a live birth. From the stand
point of allowing or not allowing a blood transfusions that is a personal choice,
from the perspective of the pro-choice crowd why are those choices not honored?
It isn't like blood transfusions take r of convenience with no value at
all, which goes way beyond the debate of abortion.
Kelly
Again, please remember that many disagree with you on when life begins, and on whether abortion is murder etc...
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerI think life starts at nine months before birth.
The real problem is in determining when "human life" begins. That is a debate that theology cannot answer. The other major question is in preservation of life. If a pregnant woman will die unless she aborts, do we simply allow both mother and fetus to die, or do we preserve as much life as possible?
Again, please remember that many disagree with you on when life begins, and on whether abortion is murder etc...
I am pro choice.
Life is precious, but better look after the life we already have rather than saying "no" to abortion and wrecking potentially 2 lives instead of 1 or 0.
20 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne[/b]I didn't say this was an open book anything goes, I said it should not be done
[b]It is a line I didn't think you'd cross, as I would not either; however, you and
others here are also putting pressure on others for their lines that they would not
cross. At what point do these lines become important enough to honor?...I would not refuse my child's life due to a blood transfusion, but who am I to tell
another their beliefs and stan r sex, murders his child, etc.
What's really at issue here is the welfare of the child.
lightly.
Kelly
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by bbarrI'm not suggesting I agree with the JW view, I do not as a matter of fact, but I
Kelly, I respect you. I know you're a good guy. But this is exactly the sort of sloppy thinking I'm talking about. We have the right to make some decisions for our children. We do not have the right to make other decisions. We have the right to decide where our children go to church and school. We have the right to decide how best to morally educate our c ...[text shortened]... on the altar of doctrinal purity. Especially when the doctrine in question is simply absurd.
do not get the double standard being applied. As a matter of choice we allow the
taking of unborn human life when that choice is made, there are those in our
medical field who make money successfully ending unborn life. The rights and
choices we allow there are far worse in my opinion, you don't get to harm anyone
more than ending their lives, yet it is done daily.
I'm not at all suggesting all parents get to anything they want to children, but
when we apply standards against the will of anyone, that should not be done
lightly.
Kelly
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerI think when it begins is really not that important; it is when we value it that it
The real problem is in determining when "human life" begins. That is a debate that theology cannot answer. The other major question is in preservation of life. If a pregnant woman will die unless she aborts, do we simply allow both mother and fetus to die, or do we preserve as much life as possible?
Again, please remember that many disagree with you on when life begins, and on whether abortion is murder etc...
carries real meaning. You look at a couple that are going to have a baby, they
know what is inside of the mother, their son or daughter, there isn't any doubt,
it isn't a blob of flesh it is their child. When we do not value life, I don't care how
old it is, where s/he is, it is disposable unimportant.
Kelly
20 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThe point is that your position as indicated by the following statements is not really something that you actually support:
I didn't say this was an open book anything goes, I said it should not be done
lightly.
Kelly[/b]
...who am I to tell
another their beliefs and standards are not honorable since they are not like
mine?...so again who are you to tell another their value system isn’t
worth while enough to honor... You feel you have the right justification to tell
another how to raise their kids, do you think others should be able to tell you how you should raise your kids?
The basis for the answer to these type questions is simple: Parents must reasonably ensure the welfare of their child.
Parents that would deny a blood transfusion that is essential to the life of the child are not reasonably ensuring the welfare of their child.
20 Sep 10
I just want to know how or why the conclusion from being told not to eat blood became not to take a blood transfusion to save a life? Is it more rightous to refuse blood or to save a life by giving blood?
I understand the complications with blood like the potential to get a disease or virus but I guarantee this is infinitesimal compared to the help blood transfusions give.
I respect the JW's right but this is not from God.
Manny