"~* Karrolinia *~" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> "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!
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. [It's a side issue
that the USA and other governments don't
grant the unborn that right in their man-made
laws.]
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).
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 I'm going to propose next as an illustration
is purposely outrageous (to be prepared to be
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."
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.
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).
>
> > 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?
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.
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)?
> > 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.
Well ... I guess you can be outrageous too.
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.]
> > 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.
All death is certain, eventually. Prognostications
by doctors are NOT always certain.
JWs have proven that treatments that doctors
swore could not be done without blood (100%
chance of death) can be done.
JWs prefer to take the 2% chance if the
alternative is (to us) a 100% chance of
displeasing God.
-mark.
