Ruling sought on transfusion for baby of Jehovah's Witness



"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Peter Bowditch wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >can you give other
> > > >examples of parents refusing medical treatments
> > > >that are available?
> > >
> > > Vaccination.
> >
> > I was thinking of vaccination myself, though it is
> > more of a preventative measure than one that treats
> > an existing condition.
> >
> > JWs don't currently have an issue with vaccination.
> > [I'm also not interested in discussions about their
> > past viewpoint.]
> >
> > Given that others do, however, have an issue with it
> > today, why is it legal for parents to exempt their
> > children from vaccination?
> >
> > I know it is legal because I looked into it a short
> > while ago, and was surprised that in many cases the
> > parents simply have to submit a statement that they
> > object to vaccinations for religious reasons, and
> > they are excused.
> >
> > Again, why are they legally allowed to get away with that?
> >
>
> Why would they NOT be allowed to avoid vaccination? If an illness comes
> around that they (or their kids) are not vaccinated against, the common
flu
> for example, then they risk exposure and/or quarantine.
>
> We vaccinate kids against common illnesses because we do not want those
> illnesses running rampant through the school population, and in turn the
> general population. If a few kids -- more precisely the kids' parents --
> object to the vaccine, they do not present a serious threat to everybody
> else because everybody else has been vaccinated. The kids might become
ill,
> but they are simply separated from the rest of us for a few days until the
> illness passes. And, if they are not separated, it isn't that big of a
deal
> because we have all been vaccinated for the very reason that we don't want
> to get sick.
>


You did not answer the question. Is not refusing a vacination, expose the
child to danger, that may end a child life. Why can some Parents get away
with not vacinating a child based on religion?
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Peter Bowditch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mark Sornson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >can you give other
> > > > >examples of parents refusing medical treatments
> > > > >that are available?
> > > >
> > > > Vaccination.
> > >
> > > I was thinking of vaccination myself, though it is
> > > more of a preventative measure than one that treats
> > > an existing condition.
> > >
> > > JWs don't currently have an issue with vaccination.
> > > [I'm also not interested in discussions about their
> > > past viewpoint.]
> > >
> > > Given that others do, however, have an issue with it
> > > today, why is it legal for parents to exempt their
> > > children from vaccination?
> > >
> > > I know it is legal because I looked into it a short
> > > while ago, and was surprised that in many cases the
> > > parents simply have to submit a statement that they
> > > object to vaccinations for religious reasons, and
> > > they are excused.
> > >
> > > Again, why are they legally allowed to get away with that?
> > >
> >
> > Why would they NOT be allowed to avoid vaccination? If an illness comes
> > around that they (or their kids) are not vaccinated against, the common
> flu
> > for example, then they risk exposure and/or quarantine.
> >
> > We vaccinate kids against common illnesses because we do not want those
> > illnesses running rampant through the school population, and in turn the
> > general population. If a few kids -- more precisely the kids' parents --
> > object to the vaccine, they do not present a serious threat to everybody
> > else because everybody else has been vaccinated. The kids might become
> ill,
> > but they are simply separated from the rest of us for a few days until
the
> > illness passes. And, if they are not separated, it isn't that big of a
> deal
> > because we have all been vaccinated for the very reason that we don't
want
> > to get sick.
> >
>
>
> You did not answer the question. Is not refusing a vacination, expose the
> child to danger, that may end a child life. Why can some Parents get away
> with not vacinating a child based on religion?
>
>

I answered the question very well. Any and all parents that want to avoid a
vaccination for their kid can do so. Why would anybody want to deny them
this fundamental religious freedom? The parent takes certain risks
associated with rejection of the vaccine, but this is their right as a
parent.
 
"Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "~* Karrolinia *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > ## This is a totally different subject. We're talking about children
> > already born, not embryos/fetuses!

> To me there's no difference. To me, the
> embryo/fetus is still the child of the parents,
> and is a living human that has a God-given right
> to protection and has a right to have its
> parents make decisions that protect it so
> that it will be born.

## Then this god needs to be more careful who he "gives" a child to, and
makes sure said child is wanted and will be loved.

[It's a side issue
> that the USA and other governments don't
> grant the unborn that right in their man-made
> laws.]

## Because the majority of people don't see a glob of unwanted cells as a
child.

> Some threads ago, you're the one who high-handedly
> lectured me about circumcision, that 'foreskins
> have a PURPOSE'
and it isn't for man to take them
> away (for any reason, religious or otherwise).

## What has that go to do with a glob of cells? They don't circumcise
embryos.

> Well, an embryo/fetus has a purpose too -- but
> it seems that you have no problem with seeing
> that purpose terminated according to some human
> justifications.

## What purpose has an unwanted embryo? One that the parents don't want
and will not love and cherish? Clue us in. Are you going to tell us the
earth needs MORE mouths to feed? What's the connection to a man being
deprived of part of his genitals without his consent?

> What I'm going to propose next as an illustration
> is purposely outrageous (to be prepared to be
> offended):

## I'm not easily offended.

> Suppose a JW women is 2 months pregnant and has
> a 9-month-old child already (it could be older).
> The child suffers some malady (accident, disease)
> that requires treatment that traditionally involves
> blood transfusions. Of course, the parents refuse
> consent to use blood, and the doctors go to court
> to force blood.
> Now imagine the doctors say this: "Since it's obvious
> to us that you WANT your child to die, how about this:
> we abort the child you are carrying instead, because
> THAT is legal AND perfectly ethical, and we save the
> other, since that will still leave you with one child?
> Since you obviously want to kill a child, we'll let
> you kill the one it's legal for you kill."

## This isn't offensive,... it's stupid altogether.

> Again, of course it's outrageous to suggest that any
> doctor would really say this as a just rationale for
> aborting a child, but it's just as outrageous to JWs
> to say we WANT to kill our children because we cannot,
> in good conscience, consent to blood transfusions.

## Tell us, what happens to parents who ALLOW their child or loved one to
die and then they leave the WTS? Now, they have the guilt of that death to
live with the rest of their lives. To answer your question - yes, at the
time of their fatal decision they WANT the child to die more than they want
to displease the WTS, their friends at the KHs and the GB.

> BUT, the legality of the suggestion still stands.
> It's legal for that same woman to abort her unborn
> child, but it's not legal for her not to consent to
> a transfusion for her born child (even though she
> is still seeking the best bloodless care possible).

## A glob of cells can't be compared to an already born, living, breathing,
independent human being. Once that child leaves the women's body she has no
right to kill it or allow it to die to please someone else, i.e. the WTS,
the GB, the friends at the KHs.

> > ## What's the connection? People keep large dogs and dogs have killed
> > children as well, so have fallen off bunkbeds, getting their heads
caught in
> > cribs or between mattress's and walls, hanging themselves with Venetian
> > blind cords.... do we go back to living in skin huts and caves?

> Excellent additional material.

> In real life, parents have the right to make
> decisions for their families and homes that
> may introduce harm to their children. Your examples
> help us all appreciate how common that is.
> In fact, parents don't have to get permission to
> do any of the things you mention. There are LOTS
> of choices, some of which are safer than others,
> some of which have a much higher statistical risk
> of causing real harm than others. Yet, all of
> those decisions are unregulated by the law.

## Exactly! Raising children has it's risks. But should that dog attack
the child, or he/she falls off that bunkbed and they're bleeding to death -
you get help as soon as you can to save them. If that's a transfusion, then
you do it. If it's a broken leg, you have them set the leg......

> But medical decisions ARE regulated by the law?
> Even when it is clear that the parents ARE seeking
> medical care (but possibly care this is too advanced
> for the abilities of the doctors at hand to provide)?

## Too advanced? In many cases there is no substitute for blood. As for my
belief in blood - it should only be used when nothing else will work, when
nothing else is available.

> > ## The Jews trusted in god and look what happened to them. Think Masada
and
> > Germany.

> Well ... I guess you can be outrageous too.

## Well? What did your god for them? They trusted in him and >> SURPRISE
<< he did NOTHING for them. Why should he suddenly start doing anything for
your children?

> I'll let the Jews speak for themselves (feel
> free to run what you say here by a few of them).
> JWs trusted in God during Nazi rule -- I'll look
> at what happened to them.
> [Side note: recently, in the news, was mention of
> a Jew who went through the Holocaust, who later
> became a JW. He was 'on tour' as part of a Holocaust
> education program. I'll try to google the reference
> if you'd like.]

## So you're saying the deaths of 6,000,000 Jews and others never
happened????? Or that ONLY this one Jewish man who became a JW was saved by
your god?

> All death is certain, eventually. Prognostications
> by doctors are NOT always certain.

## But death by hemorrhage is certain, and it doesn't wait until the child
is in his/her old age.

> JWs have proven that treatments that doctors
> swore could not be done without blood (100%
> chance of death) can be done.

## So you're now saying they have a blood substitute as good as real blood?
That's news to me.

> JWs prefer to take the 2% chance if the
> alternative is (to us) a 100% chance of
> displeasing God.

## There are hundreds of gods out there - find a compassionate, loving,
caring god who values your life and the lives of your children

> -mark.
--
US.......
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
 
"Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> But, just for the sake of argument, allow me
> to suggest how JWs might view the matter.
>
> The Bible directive "abstain from blood" is at
> Acts 15:20,

** With NO MENTION of transfusions to come in some future time that will
save millions of lives. No mention that a transfusion is not eating or
drinking blood. Then we have this scripture:
Numbers 23:24 Here God tells them they will not lie down until they eat
the flesh of their prey and DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE SLAIN!!!!

which includes a total of 4 things,
> "abstain from things polluted to idols and
> from fornication and from what is strangled
> and from blood." (NWT)

** And as everyone knows a transfusion isn't EATING or DRINKING blood.
There is no mention against blood for saving a life in the bible.

To JWs, the last two are
> really the same, because "strangled" meat (i.e.,
> meat caught in a snare, and not drained of blood
> before it died) is in the same vein (pun not
> intended - but hey, it works) as the command to
> abstain from blood.

** This has nothing to do with transfusions.

> You'd probably agree that, rationale aside, it
> probably wouldn't be very nice to force either
> a JW or a JW-child to actually eat blood, or eat
> unbled meat. [I'm guessing that at least
> orthodox Jews would feel the same way.] You
> probably couldn't argue that saying, "since we
> forced you to eat it, we take the blame, not you,"
> would be a very comforting argument. Even if
> the one forced to eat isn't to blame, they
> wouldn't be happy about it, no matter what the
> reason was.

** There are tribes in Africa who use the FRESH blood of cattle to
supplement their poor diets. There is nothing else to provide them
nutrition where they live. No one is talking about forcing a JW to drink
sour blood from some dead animal caught in a snare or picked up off a
highway.

You still haven't told us how parents who allow their children to die for
lack of blood cope with this when they leave the WTS. What does the guilt
do to them? How do they live with it? Does the WTS pay for their
psychiatrists or therapists?
--
Ronnie & Bonnie.....
Just more loving kindness from God...
"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and
sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts
against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and
blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I,
the Lord, have spoken." Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17
><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~
 
"Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All I meant was that animals caught in
> traps may die while still in the trap, and by
> the time the trapper gets to them, the
> blood has coagulated, and is thus not possible
> to drain.

## And this animal wouldn't taste very good either. Most animals caught
this way are used for their pelts, not as food.
--
MiKrobez & Lilly Wytenpure....
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. .... this is historically one of
THE FIRST GENOCIDES... commanded supposedly by the merciful GOD!!!!
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<((((0> ~~~~ }<{{{{ô> ~~~~ }<((((¤> ~~~~ }<{{{{Ò>
 
"Carol Lee Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pine.OSF.3.96.1031124163154.1355B->
It is interesting to check out just which (and what kind of
> interpretations of which) are followed and why, and which ones are just
> ignored or interpreted in such a way that they are deemed trivial or not
> valid to them while they may be valid to some other religious group.
====================
Carol, I'm still waiting for the answer as to why they don't marry their
deceased brother's wives to provide a son for the dead brother, why they
don't stone their disobedient children to death at the Village Gates, why
they aren't selling their daughter's into slavery, why they don't keep
slaves, why their menstruating wives are allowed in the house, etc. etc.
They kept what they liked and dumped the rest claiming Jesus came and
changed everything. How rational......
--
The other Carol.....
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
 
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not only must the JW live with the violation, but that violation comes
from
> the hand of government, who by Consittutional law must make no law
> respecting an establishment of religion, and the free expression therof.
If
> government can force JWs to forgo thier religion, then government can
force
> any of us to alter our expression thereof. If we can be forced to alter
our
> expression thereof, then it is no longer free expression.

$$ So you're saying David Koresh (the Waco whacko) should have been left
alone in his religion to have sex with all the members at age 12? That
these young girls should have been left a lone to bear all his children
without benefit of maturity, medical care or marriage? That was HIS
interpretation of the bible and their religious beliefs - remember? Where
does it end where children and religion are concerned? His crazy religious
beliefs were no more or less important than a JWs beliefs.

> I do not agree for one second with the position of the family involved,
but
> they have the right to the free expression thereof,

$$ So did the Branch Dividians and young girls whose lives were damaged
forever.

and governemnt is
> preparing to violate that basic right that Americans have. If we can deny
> this basic right to JWs, then we can deny this basic right to others.
Before
> we know it, we will have government making laws respecting an
establishment
> of religion.

$$ They should regulate religions that HARM or kill their young members.
--
Us.......
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
 
"Carol Lee Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pine.OSF.3.96.1031124161307.10378B-
> Probably members of the medical community know that whether parents are
> religious or of which variety doesn't matter a hoot if it prevents
> appropriate care when the life of a child hangs in the balance.

$$ The medical community also know that people leave religions all the time.
The JW who allows the death of their child today may no longer be a JW next
month. What about the dead child? It's too late for them.

> The life of a child should trump belief in imaginary friends any day of
> the week.

$$ Exactly! And the parents may thank you for it someday.

> > The child and the family also all forever live with the
> > feeling of violation.

> A small thing to live with when compared with living with the the loss of
> a child which could possibly have been prevented.

$$ And the feelings of guilt and disgust with one's self when they realize
they allowed their child to die for nothing! Even JWs have their doubts
about the GBs interpretation of this scripture and exactly what it means.
Their GB has made so many mistakes and misinterpretations before.
--
Iris Gardenz......
The JWs keep saying it (Armageddon) is imminent, just a matter of time, only
a matter of
weeks or months from the predicted date.... 1874(+40), 1878(+40), 1910,
1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1925, 1940, 1945, 1975, 1999/2000...
(PB)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
 
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It appears to me that you are making your position because you are opposed
> to JWs.

** I'm not opposed to JWs themselves - I'm opposed to what they're taught by
the WTS do and how they do it - and to each other no less. Ever hear of
love the sinner - hate the sins?
--
Ronnie & Bonnie.....
Just more loving kindness from God...
"Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in the midst of you and
sons shall eat their fathers...I will send famine and wild beasts
against you and they shall rob you of your children; pestilence and
blood shall pass through you; and I will bring a sword upon you. I,
the Lord, have spoken." Ezekiel 5:10, 5:17
><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~ ><> ~~~
 
"Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Carol Lee Smith wrote:
> > Carol who?
===============================
> The other Carol, Carol Windsong -- she almost never
> actually signs her real name, and she almost never
> uses a real e-mail address. She is known mostly for
> her posting 'style' and the slant of her content.
> -mark.

I would have to be CRAZY to use my real name and e-mail address here.
Anyone who wants to reach me by e-mail can - just ask.
--
Carol.....
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> more like she got dumped by her ISP for slandering others...
=================
And everyone on ARJW knows I have the *SAME* ISP since I got online on 1996.
:) You on the other hand have had more than anyone can keep tract of.
LOL!!! You get kicked off and get a new ISP as often as the WTS gets their
endless streams of "new light" from their special-edition Watchtower god. A
Google search will prove that to anyone who cares to check.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "--tomcat--" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > As a parent, I DEMAND that right.
> > > >
> > > > * You demand the right to allow a child who has the chance for a
> NORMAL
> > > life
> > > > die? Perhaps you need to relocate to a less advanced country where
no
> > one
> > > > cares much about the children.
> > >
> > >
> > > says a person who agree with abortion. When you kill preborn
> >
> > I think you mean fetus, unless you find the word preborn in a dictionary
> > somewhere.
> >
>
> call it a fetus, enbryo, what ever you like... what ever you wish to call
it
> has the potential of becoming a human being. No other organ or cell in the
> women body will serve the purpose as an embryo would. If a women wants a
> child, that the process it going to take to get one, wether it be from her
> own uterus, or another surogate, or invitro and grown in a lab. remove the
> embryo, or fetus and cut it up via planned abortion, and the child that
> would have been is no longer..
>
> better?
A little bit better, thanks.
Now as to what we are talking about, the key word is potential, not is a
human yet, just potential. So since this is only a fetus potentially
becoming a child, then at this time it should only be the mothers choice,
not mine, not yours, or anyone elses either. The women's choice only. She
should be the only one to make that final decision, whether or not we like
it.
 
"~* US & WE *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > more like she got dumped by her ISP for slandering others...
> =================
> And everyone on ARJW knows I have the *SAME* ISP since I got online on 1996.
> :) You on the other hand have had more than anyone can keep tract of.
> LOL!!! You get kicked off and get a new ISP

sure... if you say so it must be true.. yup sure.....
 
Dickenson:
Why did you say I had an agenda, Captain Obvious?
My motivations were open, obvious and stated.
You kept your motivations secret.

You're probably just a sock anyway.
I don't believe your location or identity.

The people with autism seem to
think you don't have autism.
Maybe it's how you post to them?

When they asked you, why did you give a song and dance?
Seems odd that you made comments about
how you might eventually have it.

Here's some laundry soap.
Wash up little dirty sock puppet!
 
"--tomcat--" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "--tomcat--" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a parent, I DEMAND that right.
> > > > >
> > > > > * You demand the right to allow a child who has the chance for a
> NORMAL
> life
> > > > > die? Perhaps you need to relocate to a less advanced country where
> no
> one
> > > > > cares much about the children.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > says a person who agree with abortion. When you kill preborn
> > >
> > > I think you mean fetus, unless you find the word preborn in a dictionary
> > > somewhere.
> > >
> >
> > call it a fetus, enbryo, what ever you like... what ever you wish to call
> it
> > has the potential of becoming a human being. No other organ or cell in the
> > women body will serve the purpose as an embryo would. If a women wants a
> > child, that the process it going to take to get one, wether it be from her
> > own uterus, or another surogate, or invitro and grown in a lab. remove the
> > embryo, or fetus and cut it up via planned abortion, and the child that
> > would have been is no longer..
> >
> > better?
> A little bit better, thanks.
> Now as to what we are talking about, the key word is potential, not is a
> human yet, just potential. So since this is only a fetus potentially
> becoming a child, then at this time it should only be the mothers choice,
> not mine, not yours, or anyone elses either. The women's choice only. She
> should be the only one to make that final decision, whether or not we like
> it.

she made the choice once her leg spreads apart to recieve mister ****.

do we have to get technical here?
 
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Mark Sornson wrote:
>
> > Carol Lee Smith wrote:
>
> > > How in the world can any animal be drained of blood BEFORE it died?
>
> > Sorry, I was typing in a hurry.
>
> No big deal.
>
> <snip details about strangling and the draining of blood>
>
> Just as it is impossible for anyone to be a total vegan no matter how hard
> they try, it is impossible to remove every single blood cell from the meat
> we eat.

Yes, that's it exactly. Thus, clearly the effort
required to follow the commands was only that which
sufficiently demonstrated appreciation for it to a
reasonable degree.

>
> There are a lot of OT strictures that JWs do not follow.

True - but each issue has to be considered on
its own merits (and context of application).

>
> It is interesting to check out just which (and what kind of
> interpretations of which) are followed and why, and which ones are just
> ignored or interpreted in such a way that they are deemed trivial or not
> valid to them while they may be valid to some other religious group.

Well, there you go -- you do indeed have to
check out each issue to understand "why" they
are followed or not. I can't think of any
better rule to follow than that.

What's the alternative? To depend on sweeping
generalizations and/or unsubstantiated all-or-nothing
claims?

-mark.
 
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Mark Sornson wrote:
>
> > ...
> > What that really means is that the medical community
> > really doesn't give a hoot about the religious views
> > of the parents,
>
> Probably members of the medical community know that whether parents are
> religious or of which variety doesn't matter a hoot if it prevents
> appropriate care when the life of a child hangs in the balance.

Just as Jeff Strickland isn't agreeing with JW
RELIGIOUS views, I'm not agreeing with the religious
views of other religions (which, say, eschew all
medical treatment) either.

The real issue, however, is who gives whom a right to
"give a hoot" or to utterly NOT "give a hoot" about
the strongly held beliefs of others?

If a doctor takes a child away, forces treatment upon
it, and THEN the treatment backfires (say 'bad blood'
was given, and the child gets sick and dies), who takes
the rap for that? How much is that "I don't give a hoot"
attitude worth, then?

>
> The life of a child should trump belief in imaginary friends any day of
> the week.

I see ... and those "imaginary friends" would be
whom? God, for instance? You know, the one whom
the US government alleges that "we" "trust" in on
every piece of money? The one whom the Pledge of
Allegience declares this nation is "under"?

Are you saying that the medical community actually
has an internal policy in force that presumes
the non-existence of God, and is therefore justified
in making choices for people on the basis of the
notion that this life (in the material world that
we can see and touch) is truly all there is?

Could you share that policy with us in a little
more detail?

>
> <snip>
>
> > > The child lives.
>
> > The child and the family also all forever live with the
> > feeling of violation.
>
> A small thing to live with when compared with living with the the loss of
> a child which could possibly have been prevented.

Yes, it's a "small thing" to those who will eventually
forget about the patient and their family because of
the new traumas each day brings.

But who are you to say what is a "small thing"
and not a big thing to those who are personally
experiencing the results of forced treatment?

And again, if, say the forced treatment involves
'bad blood', and the patient (child) dies, how small
a thing is that?

>
> > JWs don't take the stand they do because they want
> > their children to die. If they wanted their children
> > to die, they wouldn't take them to doctors in the
> > first place.
>
> Do you think that those of faiths which do not use standard medical
> procedures/practices/practitioners are any less religious than JWs or that
> their "violation" is any less when their faith is trumped by authorities
> intervening in cases where minors lives are at risk?

It's not really important whether *I* think that
or not. The question is, who sets the legal standard
for toleration when it comes to assertions of faith?

The "standard medical procedures" of today were not in
place 'yesterday.' For instance, JW adults of the past
had blood forced upon them because the medical
community then didn't have the knowledge, techniques, or
equipment that has since been developed that makes
bloodless medicine (on adults) safe and effective for
many procedures (that were once thought impossible
without it).

Now that bloodless surgery is growing in prevelence,
and is becoming 'standard medical procedure' for
certain kinds of cases, suddenly there's this greater
willingness to tolerate JW beliefs (at least those held
by adult JWs). Adult JWs are NOW allowed to take risks
for themselves -- and are declared by the courts to have
a right to do so -- because 'standard medical procedures'
have improved the odds, and the authorities are more
comfortable with the secular aspects of the situation.

But that really is the conundrum. Adult JWs (in the
USA, and probably other 'advance' countries) have
been given the legal right, in court, to refuse medical
treatment. One could argue that they really had that
right in the past, but it only took the advance of
'standard medical treatment' to help authorities see
that that right exists.

So, are human rights really defined by medical
technology, that people can have their way with their
spiritual choices ONLY when the atheistic medical
community (which doesn't put stock in "imaginary friends")
gives them the OK to do so?

There may come a time when the medical world figures
out how to do without transfused blood in all cases.
So, that may make arguments with JWs a moot point.
It still doesn't address the matter of whether people
have a right to avoid any other, or even all, "standard
medical procedures/practices." So, that still leaves
the question open: who or what gives the medical community
the legal right to "trump" the wishes of the individual?

-mark.
 
"~* US & WE *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Not only must the JW live with the violation, but that violation comes
> from
> > the hand of government, who by Consittutional law must make no law
> > respecting an establishment of religion, and the free expression therof.
> If
> > government can force JWs to forgo thier religion, then government can
> force
> > any of us to alter our expression thereof. If we can be forced to alter
> our
> > expression thereof, then it is no longer free expression.
>
> $$ So you're saying David Koresh (the Waco whacko) should have been left
> alone in his religion to have sex with all the members at age 12? That
> these young girls should have been left a lone to bear all his children
> without benefit of maturity, medical care or marriage? That was HIS
> interpretation of the bible and their religious beliefs - remember? Where
> does it end where children and religion are concerned? His crazy religious
> beliefs were no more or less important than a JWs beliefs.
>


you sure you are talking about David Koresh.. or Mormons?


> > I do not agree for one second with the position of the family involved,
> but
> > they have the right to the free expression thereof,
>
> $$ So did the Branch Dividians and young girls whose lives were damaged
> forever.
>

I thought they all got killed off by the goverment.

> and governemnt is
> > preparing to violate that basic right that Americans have. If we can deny
> > this basic right to JWs, then we can deny this basic right to others.
> Before
> > we know it, we will have government making laws respecting an
> establishment
> > of religion.
>
> $$ They should regulate religions that HARM or kill their young members.

And that is constitution violation. Maybe they should have JW's were
Tatoo's on their right arm, you know to Identify them as well.

seig heil seig heil seig heil carol.
 
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> >
> > Again, why are they legally allowed to get away with that?
> >
>
> Why would they NOT be allowed to avoid vaccination? If an illness comes
> around that they (or their kids) are not vaccinated against, the common flu
> for example, then they risk exposure and/or quarantine.

I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to,
but only attempting to logically extend some of
the reasoning that is used to force other sorts of
treatment (to see if doing so raised contradictions).

>
> We vaccinate kids against common illnesses because we do not want those
> illnesses running rampant through the school population, and in turn the
> general population. If a few kids -- more precisely the kids' parents --
> object to the vaccine, they do not present a serious threat to everybody
> else because everybody else has been vaccinated. The kids might become ill,
> but they are simply separated from the rest of us for a few days until the
> illness passes. And, if they are not separated, it isn't that big of a deal
> because we have all been vaccinated for the very reason that we don't want
> to get sick.

I agree with the above.

However, you don't directly say that *some* of the
common illnesses, if they ARE caught, DO represent
a "serious risk" to the one who catches them. Some
of those illnesses may cause death, so (the pro-vaccine
argument goes) parents are being negligent for
NOT taking existing steps to protect their children.

Yet, that form of alleged negligence *is* legal.

Evidently there is some variability in the amount of
risk when it comes to determining who has a right to
what amount of risk. So ... what are the legal metrics
for how much risk is too much? And who sets those
metrics?

-mark.
 
Carol Lee Smith wrote:
>
> On 22 Nov 2003, Mark Sornson wrote:
>
> > "~* Karrolinia *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > > ## This is a totally different subject. We're talking about children
> > > already born, not embryos/fetuses!
>
> > To me there's no difference. <snip>
>
> You are entitled to you opinion. You are not entitled to force your
> opinion on those who don't agree with you.

Um ... OK ... but how does my voicing of that
opinion "force" it upon someone else? JW opinions
don't limit your legal options to choose.

>
> > Some threads ago, you're the one who high-handedly
> > lectured me about circumcision, that 'foreskins
> > have a PURPOSE' and it isn't for man to take them
> > away (for any reason, religious or otherwise).
>
> The purpose served benefits the person so endowed.
>
> > Well, an embryo/fetus has a purpose too
>
> The embryo/fetus has the effect of being a parasite on the female body,
> sucking off of the resources of that female.

Some could argue that once the baby is born, it
is even MORE of a "parasite" (for parasites aren't
always internal). Breast-feeding is DEFINITELY (and
literally) "sucking off the resources of that female".
Born children are a LOT more work, and a far bigger
drain on 'female resources', than unborn children.

Some might argue that labeling children as parasites
is confirmed by even the most cursory examination of
the teenage years.

>
> To a consenting female, that is fine.

If consent is the sole legal metric, then why
not allow "females" to simply stop consenting to
take care of their born, parasitic children?

If the harried mother decides she wants her old
free-of-responsibility life back, why not allow
her simply to irradicate those parasitic children
by the most expedient means?


> But not everyone appreciates such a parasitic relationship.

Indeed.

It's a good thing humans can think up effective
"final solutions" for other humans which they
can justify labeling as "parasites".


> In some cases, it very well may jeopardize the life of the female.

Possibly. But in some cases, some people have been
known to give their lives that others might live, or
that they might not compromise their principles.

>
> Comparing a fetus/embryo to a foreskin is bizarre.

It's no less bizzare than labeling a fetus/embryo as a
"parasite". By the way, is that a legally or a medically
sanctioned definition?

My original point was that the other Carol took
major umbrage at the practice of circumcision,
but hardly blinks at the notion of that more RADICAL
form of 'circumcision,' abortion. Spare the foreskin,
but abort the whole child!

-mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back