Ruling sought on transfusion for baby of Jehovah's Witness



jabriol wrote:

> "Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The freedom of religion is not absolute.
>>
>>Your freedom to raise your children as you will is not absolute.
>>
>
>
> I see, and this is stated where in the american constitution?
>
>
1st Amendment s interpretated by the SCOTUS

WISCONSIN v. YODER, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

It is true that activities of individuals, even when religiously based,
are often subject to regulation by the States in the exercise of their
undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare, or
the Federal Government in the exercise of its delegated powers. See, e.
g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971); Braunfeld v. Brown,
366 U.S. 599 (1961); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944);
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879).

"On the other hand, the Court has rejected challenges under the Free
Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts
prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for `even when the action
is in accord with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free
from legislative restrictions.' Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 603 .
The conduct or actions so regulated have invariably posed some
substantial threat to public safety, peace or order. See, e. g.,
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 ; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197
U.S. 11 ; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 . . . ." 374 U.S., at
402 -403.
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > When the religious beliefs of the parents cause the DEATH of the
> > children,... yes. Once a child is already born you don't have to right
to
> > kill the child using religion as an excuse. That's the law, if you
don't
> > like it you are welcome to leave the USA. Try Iraq, or Palestine....
=========================>
> No it is not law. Please provide a referance in the constituion or any law
> book, that the sate have parental right greater than a birth parent.

# You provide the reference showing a parent has the legal RIGHT to kill his
or her child once born.
--
Mikrobz & Carol.....
SUBJECT: Best Bumper Sticker of the Year:
If you can read this, thank a teacher....
If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~ º¤º°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <[email protected]> wrote in
message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The freedom of religion is not absolute.
> >
> > Your freedom to raise your children as you will is not absolute.
===================>
> I see, and this is stated where in the american constitution?

$ Show us WHERE in the constitution it says a parent can legally beat,
starve, abuse, rape and neglect their children.
--
Us...
Don't believe in the WTS 1975-fiasco?
Find a copy of the October 8th, 1966 edition of Awake! Or a copy of the
book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" (pages 26-30).
Those should give the documentation any JW would desire.
=================================================
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > No: the parents may believe what they want to, refuse all the
> > transfusions they want to ... but they can't inflict those
> > beliefs on children.
=====================
> Apart of the JW beliefs system is to teach their children their religion.
If
> the state say they can not inflict the beliefs in thier children, then the
> state is deciding what religion the children to follow. this is
> unconstitutional.

## Then go back where you came from. Move to Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
I'm sure some of these countries will allow any type of child abuse in the
name of a person's religion. In some lands you can still stone you
disobedient children to death as the bible tells you to do. You can still
sell your daughters into slavery - which your god approved of. Surely you
would be happier there than here whining constantly about the American
school system, the justice system.... on and on you whine and moan.
America, love it or leave it!
--
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]...
>
> "~* Reel McKoi *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> # Yes, everyone knows what fanatical religions are capable of. Think
> > allowing an innocent child to die because of the mistranslation made by
> > uneducated men with no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew at the Watchtower
> Corp.
> > Think 9/11 and the WTC for starters.
>
> so muslims are fanatical. I see.

$$ According to YOU all other religions are fanatical and demonical.
Typical moronic answer from you. :) Your cult, the Watchtower Society
kills your own children - they kill strangers...... equally as bad.
Killing is killing.

== the usual Jabriol sick WTS inspired garbage snipped ===
--
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]...
>
> "~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > ## When the child's life is at stake, why not? Once a child is born the
> > parent has the responsibility to do the best for the child where
survival
> is
> > concerned.

> staed where in the constitution?

## Where is it sated in the constitution that parents can legally neglect,
beat, rape, starve, and abuse their children?

> > ## So had someone tried to stop the religious fanatic in Nashville TN
who
> > was convinced her god told her to put her child in the over and 500F ...
> > that would have been interfering with her freedom of religion? There
was
> > no one there to save the child. By the time the smoke alerted a
neighbor
> it
> > was too late. The youngster died a horrible death in the oven. The
woman
> > truly believed god told her to do this..... it was HER religious belief
> that
> > she did the right thing.

> that is correct.

## So we should change the law and allow parents to do as they please with
their children in the name of some god?


> > ## Children aren't mature enough to make life and death decisions.

> Then the state should remove all children from JW's home, for danger to a
> child in a life. Or sterilize all JW's..
> that something you would like to see.

## Oh really......? You better get those meds adjusted Jabbers. :)
--
Us...
Don't believe in the WTS 1975-fiasco?
Find a copy of the October 8th, 1966 edition of Awake! Or a copy of the
book "Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God" (pages 26-30).
Those should give the documentation any JW would desire.
=================================================
 
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > # It's their decision up to the point where their irrational choices
will
> > cost an innocent child her/his life.

> Even the doctors involved say that the transfusion might not work. They do
> not know. The transfusion might even make the child worse. They do not
know.

$$ OK,... you win. Lets just let the children die. Lets not interfere at
all when a parent claims "religious reasons." Allow parents to Insure the
children's lives, then sicken them (think Munchousen (sp?) by proxy) and
then bring them into the hospital where they can die because of "religious
beliefs" ....don't think some of these crack-heads, screwballs, sociopaths
and other assorted nut-cases wouldn't do it. We can then all pat ourselves
on the back for allowing the parents to CHOOSE the course of treatment - >>
DEATH << and a nice financial award - all in the name of religion.
--
Us...........
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -= Isaac Asimov =-
===========================================
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "~* Reel McKoi *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > # That's your prerogative. Most American people value the life of
> children
> > and believe they should be protected from unbalanced, neglectful, or
> abusive
> > parents.

> belief, and a matter of constituional law are 2 different items.

# Where in the constitutional law does it allow parents to starve, neglect,
beat, abuse their children?

> >Whether the unbalanced mental and emotional state is caused by
> > drug abuse, Alcohol abuse or religious fanaticism makes no difference.

> here we go.. religious fanaticticism.. let say that is the case. Is it
> constituional for the goverment to intervene in a religion that is
> fanatical? and where in the law books it is written?

# YES, where the life of a human being is concerned. Where in the law books
is it written we can starve, beat, kill...... our kids?

> what about tradtional religion. Will the goverment step in and prohibit
boys
> from being altar boys, because the risk of get buggered by a preist is
> likely?

# What about your pseudo-religion? Will the government step in and
prohibit boys
from being around your pedophile elders, because the risk of get buggered by
a Jehovah's Witness is
likely?
======== same sick nonsence snipped =======
--
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)
====================================================><>
 
"Mark Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Also, parents DO have a right to let their children
> die. That's called abortion -- according to the court
> they have a constitutional right to terminate the lives
> of their unborn children (before the child reaches a
> certain stage of development).

## This is a totally different subject. We're talking about children
already born, not embryos/fetuses!

> Parents also have a constitutional right to expose
> their children to another potentially fatal risk --
> they have a right to own and bring guns into their
> homes.

## 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?

> At present, the law doesn't seem to allow JWs to
> refuse blood for their children on RELIGIOUS
> reasons (even though our money says "in God we
> trust" -- evidently JWs can pay doctors with that
> money, but JWs cannot claim that in this one instance,
> they are legally allowed to trust God more than they
> trust doctors).

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

But, does the law allow parents to
> refuse blood because they believe that they are making
> a medically PROTECTIVE decision, to keep them from
> getting something fatal from blood itself?

## Better to take a 2% chance of something in the blood then 100% chance of
certain death.

Us....
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!!!!
--<--<---<---{@ ---<---<---<---<{@ ---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<
 
"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 opposed to allowing children to die no matter what religion their
parents are.

> I am making my position because I support faith. Frankly, I do oppose JWs,
> and I will hire a flatbed truck and ride around town standing on the back
> and denouncing JWs as vigorously as I can, but I support their right to
> raise children in accordance to their faith.

$$ Who cares how they RAISE them? It's allowing them to die because of
their GB - that's the problem.

I am speaking out to protect a faith that I do not accept because if I
> protect faiths that I do not accept, I can rest assured that my faith will
> not be taken away by government.

$$ You're obsessed with the Government. You remind me of some
anti-Government skin-heads who used to live around here. That's all they
talked about. Move to another country or get elected to office and change
the laws to allow parents to let kids die for any and all reasons.
--
Mikrobz.....
SUBJECT: Best Bumper Sticker of the Year:
If you can read this, thank a teacher....
If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~ º¤º°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~
 
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "~* Reel McKoi *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > ## And YOU consider that compassionate and supporting? I disagree.
When
> a
> > child is old enough to decide for themselves which religion they want to
> > follow they are going to follow it - no matter how much the parents rave
> and
> > rant like lunatics.
=====================
> When my kids are old enough to make this decision for themselves, they
won't
> be children anymore, they will be young adults. My only hope is that they
> enjoyed the religious experience that I brought them enough to pursue the
> experience on their own.

$ Nothing wrong with that. As long as you don't make them feel guilty, feel
stupid, threaten to disown and shun them etc. if they reject your particular
religion.

Koketta & Mikerobz..........
"Welcome to the Watchtower God's Organization. Here
is the list of correct personal decisions. You may deviate
from them if you wish, but you'll be branded as spiritually
weak, and if we don't like you we'll do (disfellowship) you for not having
the right attitude. Enjoy your freedom." (Kirll)
~~~ }<(((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((Ô> ~~~ }<{{{{{(o>
~~~ }<{{{o>
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "~* Reel McKoi *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Children are not required by law or adopt the beliefs of their parents.
> > Loving, supporting, compassionate parents do not cram their religious
> > beliefs (or any beliefs) down the throats of their children - with
> innuendos
> > that'll disown and shun them if they rejects such beliefs.
=======================================
> you are wrong on both accounts.

## Here in America we are not required to follow the religion of our
parents.

If I tell my child that pre-marital sex is
> biblicly wrong, may bring an unwanted pregancy or a sexual transmited
> illness. The child has an option not to listen to me or respect my
authority
> as a parent.

## What has THIS got to do with a young person rejecting their parent's
religion? Many young people these days have babies out of wed-lock and
*are* following their parent's religion - including Jehovah's Witness girls.
There is no way to control the behavior of teenagers. Also just because
they reject the parent's religion doesn't mean they're going to go out and
have sex.

> Have you told this to the Amish? Muslims girls, etc.

## Told what to them? You think they don't leave their religions? Think
again!
--
Maluuka....
What makes a pagan tradition pagan? Idolatry, sacrifices, and polytheism.
What acts are detestable to God? Idolatry, sacrifices, and polytheism.
What's absent from Christmas? Idolatry, sacrifices, and polytheism. The
things that are common to saturnalia and Christmas are not detestable to
God. (Credit to SD)
~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~* ~~~*
 
"jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > * 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 child, you
> eliminating the chance that the preborn has... I see you not critizing
> abortion

$$ Abortion? Has the thread switched to abortion now?

> > * I am a parent, and a grandparent. If I ever become too incompetent
to
> > make GOOD rational decisions due to religious mania, some illness or
> > accident I would have hoped someone would take over and save my loved
> ones.
> > Be that the Gov, a Dr, the courts, a relative - anyone!

> says a women who allowed her son to go wild parties at motels
unsupervised.

$$ .......????

> > * Unless the parents can't make rational decisions regarding the child's
> > life due to accident, mental illness, religious fanaticism, drug
> > abuse........ it's a long list.........

> ahhhh religious fanaticism.. do we see an atheist agenda here. where in
the
> constituion does the state decide what religion is fanatical or not?

$$ Ahhhhhh....... Where in the constitution does it say parents have the
right to allow their minor children to die?
--
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]...
> And here is the question, that Carol can not answer. This in the
> constitution.. where? Because historicly speaking, child labor build this
> country.
===================
What constitution? I didn't see anything in the constitution about allowing
your children to DIE because of some religious belief. How about you post
the constitution of the US here for us to examine.
--
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)
====================================================><>
 
Say not wrote
> > However, the govt can limit the practice of your religion.

jabriol wrote
> then there is no freedom of religion, and the constitution is a fraud.

Actually, in practice, the truth seems somewhere in between.

In theory the government is not supposed to restrict the
freedome of religion in any way.

In practice there is a limit to rights when they interfere
with somebody elses rights.

For example 1st Amendment does not protect your right to
yell fire in a crowded disco.

What happens with Child Protection is supposed to be held
in reserve for IMMINENT DANGER, but what the unlicensed
caseworkers do is call anything that suits them DANGEROUS.
Children are removed for household clutter, which IN NO WAY
IS SUFFICIENT to overrule constitutional requirements that
protect the 14th Amendment right to Family Association.

Caseworkers pretend they don't know the US Constitution,
not even the most basic parts covered in High School civics.
Denying knowledge is an attempt to avoid law suit culpability.
Congress and the President on June 25th 2003 enacted a new law
that is suppose to require caseworkers to learn how to respect
family constitutional rights.

In the Juvenile Court process people are Constitutionally
supposed to have access to the documents used against them
in court, however, they use a "manilla envelope" full of
gossipy information that the family cannot have access to.
People have long been unable to see what their psychologist
wrote and reported on them, but in Child Protection there
is a much wider array of questionable documents that a
family is not allowed to cross examine in court.
(Even though Juvenile Court regarding removals is a HUGE
LIBERTY INTEREST. LIBERTY INTEREST is what guarantees
a petty thief access to all information used against them,
but through what I believe is SOPHISTRY, lawyers pretend
that the situation is not as dramatic when children are
removed from their families.)

When Constitutional rights are abused, it is a long,
laborious and very difficult or expensive process to try
to retrieve your rights denied. The part that makes me
angry (constructively) is that Judges who take an oath to
uphold the US Constitution COMMONLY ignore that oath in
Juvenile Court cases, and probably others. My old
belief that the Constitution was respected and guides
Judges like a code of ethics is sadly mistaken.
I call this the "shell game" effect. You have rights,
but they don't want to tell you what half of them are,
they ignore the better known ones and the rules and laws
which govern the Child Protection Agency are only
reluctantly made available to families they attack.

The Feds actually had to force states to openly make
their rule books public. Prior to that, state CPS
agencies actually stated that such information would
enable child abusers to know too much about how to
beat the system. Think about how that felt to any
parents who were innocent and trying to fight it.

Your rights exist under one of three walnut shells
and they can keep switching the shells around trying
to confuse you out of them.

By the way, when it comes to the COMPELLING side of
what CPS does, you should know that MOST of the kids
CPS removes do not meet Constitutional requirements
for COMPELLING INTEREST. Caseworkers trip all over
themselves trying to call everything imagineable
by the label IMMINENT DANGER. It just isn't so.

A case like a JW refused transfusion would be one of
the more exciting cases, a bit like the REAL bad guy
that made Barney Fife drop his bullet and shake.
Much like Barney Fife, the truly bad cases are used
to justify the existence of the caseworkers and agency.
Much like Barney, the caseworkers don't talk about
the boring boring everyday cases, but like to focus
on the one BAD GUY who they came across once.

The braggadoccio and exaggeration from the caseworkers
and the contractors they pay is astounding.

The ""exciting"" cases like a refused transfusion,
sexual abuse, physical abuse with injury, etc.
are a very small percentage of the mass of removals.

If these extreme cases were all that Child Protection
did, they could have four caseworkers each in an
economy car, to cover an entire state, rather than
THOUSANDS.

But to protect their INDUSTRY, they dwell and focus
on the worst cases, and to some extent HAVE deceived
the general public into believing that all of the
cases they deal with are the severe ones.

This demogoguery is not used ONLY for public image.

On an individual case basis, vindictive caseworkers
will react to parents who confront them about
violations of their rights, by running EVEN MORE
of an unfair Witch Hunt style investigation.

Minor things, even things that are COMPLETELY LEGAL
may be used in an attempt to GUILT the parents into
submission. The goal early on in a Juvenile Court
case is not to prove diddly, but to con the parents
into a ""stipulation"", which is EFFECTIVELY
a guilty plea.

Once they have that, they own the family and the
REAL violations of the Constitution become obvious.
Services "hoops" are assigned without basis.

Similarly to JW blood transfusion medical neglect,
Child Protection cases have startedbecause parents
decided NOT to give their kids certain vaccines.
This is interesting because even non-religious
people have a lot of qualms with some vaccines.
The US government knows that there is a huge problem
with several vaccines. Quite a few Gulf War vets
have learned to second guess on vaccinations.
There is an entire COMPLEX of serious scientific
doubt to be raised about several vaccines.

But there is a societal "steam roller effect"
and Child Protection caseworkers who are themselves
ignorant of the issues do remove children from
their homes accusing parents of medical neglect.
(Generally in Kangaroo Court and NOT a HIGH court
with a Jury of peers.)

But people attacking JW Constitutional Rights,
even if the issue is ""compelling"", erode such
rights for ALL people when they don't TREAD
VERY CAREFULLY on such a vital issue.

God knows, our Constitutional Rights have already
suffered a LOT of erosion through people's neglect
and ignorance of the SERIOUS principles involved.
America has betrayed itself in this regard,
unleashing evils at HOME, at least as bad as any
threat from abroad.

Much of it is indicative of a slide into SOCIALISM.
Orwell and Kafka seemed cynical, even depressive,
but now I can only see them as prophetic.

By the way, Kafka's "The Trial", if you look at
the original German, was really "The Process".
 
Greg Hanson wrote:

plenty attempting to support his agenda.

Google this guy. He's a leech and an abuser.
 
"~* Karrolinia *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > When the religious beliefs of the parents cause the DEATH of the
> > > children,... yes. Once a child is already born you don't have to
right
> to
> > > kill the child using religion as an excuse. That's the law, if you
> don't
> > > like it you are welcome to leave the USA. Try Iraq, or Palestine....
> =========================>
> > No it is not law. Please provide a referance in the constituion or any
law
> > book, that the sate have parental right greater than a birth parent.
>
> # You provide the reference showing a parent has the legal RIGHT to kill
his
> or her child once born.
> --
> Mikrobz & Carol.....
>


woem have the right to kill a pre born child..... killig a kid after it born
iy just retroactive abortion.
 
"~* Karrolinia *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "jabriol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
> >
> > "~* Egg Plant *~" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > ## When the child's life is at stake, why not? Once a child is born
the
> > > parent has the responsibility to do the best for the child where
> survival
> > is
> > > concerned.
>
> > staed where in the constitution?
>
> ## Where is it sated in the constitution that parents can legally neglect,
> beat, rape, starve, and abuse their children?
>
>

Failure to answer the question noted..

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