Fed up with JW's

[Ciao, Bella!]

magenta flame;559193 wrote: I'm more upset as you all should be that the children were taken without a reply from the parents in court.......You guys ever want your children taken away before you can say boo to a court of law? Where i come from that's called kiddnapping







Are you happy with this circumstance? Good ...I'm glad you're happy. Rejoice in it.



The next time a doctor wants to take a baby away from Vegetarian or Vegan parents...... you going to be happy?



The next time a court takes a child away from parents who refuse to give ritlin to their children....you still happy?



The next time courts take away a child because the parents refuse to allow doctors to perform experimental surgery on their child .......you still have a grin on your face?





Good I'm happy for you ......My mother always said be careful what you wish for though.



http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/drugs.htm





what about when parents decide not to have their children immunized.......Do you support the courts taking the children away?



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropi ... ionid=5485


A vegan diet is fine, but consider this:



http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/08/child ... index.html



As for the rest of your arguments...



I've not heard of this country taking children to experiment on them medically, or surgically. Nazi Germany did that, but as far I know, not the US.



Withholding medicines from a child is abuse and neglect. Do you get a kick out of watching a child suffer in pain? Remember, this is who will take care of you when you're elderly and frail. Would you truly want to take a chance on hidden resentment?



God enabled man to find ways to deal with illnesses. Why shouldn't we take advantage of this knowledge? I suffer from kidney stones. I've tried to pray my way through the pain, but it doesn't cut it. If it is a sin to seek relief from pain and suffering, I'd rather be guilty.

ETA: If the argument for raising your child as a strict vegan, denying them vaccines and meds is valid, does that then open the door for people who believe it is their right to abuse and molest children? Couldn't they argue this is their way of life, their choice, and the government can do nothing to stop it?

[Accountable]

magenta flame;559193 wrote: I'm more upset as you all should be that the children were taken without a reply from the parents in court.......You guys ever want your children taken away before you can say boo to a court of law? Where i come from that's called kiddnapping







Are you happy with this circumstance? Good ...I'm glad you're happy. Rejoice in it.



The next time a doctor wants to take a baby away from Vegetarian or Vegan parents...... you going to be happy?



The next time a court takes a child away from parents who refuse to give ritlin to their children....you still happy?



The next time courts take away a child because the parents refuse to allow doctors to perform experimental surgery on their child .......you still have a grin on your face?





Good I'm happy for you ......My mother always said be careful what you wish for though.



http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/drugs.htm





what about when parents decide not to have their children immunized.......Do you support the courts taking the children away?



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropi ... ionid=5485
Excellent points all, Magenta. I noticed that the only post so far that replied directly to you still didn't address your central point of due process.

[Ciao, Bella!]

Quite often when a child is removed from a parent's custody, there isn't time for so-called "due process". True due process for removal of a child is to get her/him to medical treatment or safety, as that is of the utmost importance.



Once the child is safe, THEN it's time to speak with the parents. This protocol is designed to safeguard the child, not deal with a parent's indignation at the fact that someone realized they are not the ideal parent.



BTW, my knowledge of this matter comes from the fact that my uncle is a retired DCF worker for the state of Florida. We are still in contact with some of his cases, from forty years ago. Do you know, they still thank him for stepping in and removing them?

[Ted]

CB:-6

Re "Couldn't they argue . . ."

Better yet call it a religion. That can cover up a lot of abuse.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

Accountable:-6

It seems to me that the issue is rather simple. If the child's life or health is at stake take whatever means the laws allow to protect them. Children are neither the chattel or the property of the parents. They have their own inherent rights to make their own decisions when they reach the age where they can.

If someone doesn't like the laws then go elsewhere.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bill Sikes]

Ciao, Bella!;559454 wrote: Nazi Germany did that, but as far I know,


Wahay! I refer you all to Godwin's Law. Thank you very much.

[BH672]

Bill Sikes;560059 wrote: Wahay! I refer you all to Godwin's Law. Thank you very much.


:wah: The post of the day!!! :wah:

[Ciao, Bella!]

Ted;560016 wrote: CB:-6



Re "Couldn't they argue . . ."



Better yet call it a religion. That can cover up a lot of abuse.



Shalom

Ted:-6


Actually, it does. However, I must point out that atheists are just as guilty of harming their children as well.

[Ted]

CB:-6

I agree but Christians are supposed to know better.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ciao, Bella!]

Ted;560281 wrote: CB:-6



I agree but Christians are supposed to know better.



Shalom

Ted:-6


:-6

[Accountable]

magenta flame;559193 wrote: I'm more upset as you all should be that the children were taken without a reply from the parents in court.......You guys ever want your children taken away before you can say boo to a court of law? Where i come from that's called kiddnapping







Are you happy with this circumstance? Good ...I'm glad you're happy. Rejoice in it.



The next time a doctor wants to take a baby away from Vegetarian or Vegan parents...... you going to be happy?



The next time a court takes a child away from parents who refuse to give ritlin to their children....you still happy?



The next time courts take away a child because the parents refuse to allow doctors to perform experimental surgery on their child .......you still have a grin on your face?





Good I'm happy for you ......My mother always said be careful what you wish for though.



http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/drugs.htm





what about when parents decide not to have their children immunized.......Do you support the courts taking the children away?



http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropi ... ionid=5485


Ted;560023 wrote: Accountable



It seems to me that the issue is rather simple. If the child's life or health is at stake take whatever means the laws allow to protect them. Children are neither the chattel or the property of the parents. They have their own inherent rights to make their own decisions when they reach the age where they can.



If someone doesn't like the laws then go elsewhere.



Shalom

Ted:-6
First, if someone doesn't like the laws then fight to change them, but that's a different part of the garden. :yh_flag



Second, to the main point, I think Magenta's (I just can't bring myself to call her MF :sneaky: ) post illustrates that your line about life or health being at stake is a gray area - and such gray areas fluctuate in favor of the parents' or public's idea of "good" based on the situation. It certainly seems to me that, in today's society, it's far more acceptable - sometimes even desirable - to cast parents' wishes aside when they take a stand on religious grounds than at other times.



Reading your post, it seems any of the circumstances Magenta brings up in her posts would be acceptable. Would they?

[Ciao, Bella!]

It's not always a case of certain faiths denying medical need/care for their children. Quite often, this happens in homes of drug abusers, and others who simply are too selfish to care. Are their rights being squashed as well? Do they have a right to abuse drugs in front of their children?

[Ted]

Accountable:-6

I certainly can agree with "fight to change them" but I doubt any such action in Canada would be successful.

As for are any of the points Magenta has made being fair in all cases,of course. As I said if the appropriate authorities feel it is necessary and the laws allow for it, absolutely. Children are not the chattel or property of their parents. They are unique human individuals who have all the same rights to life and liberty as do the rest of us.

When they arrive at an age where they can make an informed decision for themselves then they can choose as they wish.

This age of individualism has its own set of problems. We live in community and must behave as such or move to some place where one can do whatever the hell they please though I'm not sure that any such place exists; perhaps Iraq at the moment or Antarctica.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[atrut]

Question of Blood

[atrut]

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood

1 BLOOD is vital to life. Though this has been recognized from ancient times, modern research is providing a greater understanding of its life-sustaining functions.

2 The practice of transfusing human blood holds a prominent position in modern medical care. Those in the medical field and many others regard the transfer of blood from one human to another as an accepted therapeutic method.1 But there are people who do not accept blood transfusions. They are Jehovah’s Witnesses.

3 Jehovah’s Witnesses cherish and deeply respect life. This is one of the reasons why they do not smoke, use addictive drugs or seek abortions. They have learned from the Bible to view life as sacred, something to be protected and preserved both for themselves and for their children.

4 Why, then, do Jehovah’s Witnesses object to blood transfusions? Is there some rational basis for this conviction that they hold to even in the face of death? And is their position on the matter totally incompatible with modern medical knowledge and principles?

5 This topic should be of interest to everyone in the medical profession, for at any time a doctor may be confronted with the blood transfusion issue. This is quite possible, as there are more than two million of Jehovah’s Witnesses earth wide. Probably some of them are living in your community. The following is written to aid doctors to understand Jehovah’s Witnesses as patients and to consider how their view can be reasonably accommodated. First we will examine the religious basis for their position. Then, beginning on page 17, we will consider the ethics involved and some recent findings and observations by qualified doctors that may be of practical value in resolving problems regarding the use of blood.

6 Even persons who are not in the medical field are invited to look into this important matter. The position that Jehovah’s Witnesses take on blood actually involves rights and principles that can affect each one of us. And a knowledge of what they believe, and why, will aid a person to understand better this issue that has often been of concern to doctors, jurists, and students of the Bible. What, then, are the key factors in the issue?

The Religious Basis

7 Most doctors view the use of blood essentially as a matter of medical judgment, much as their daily decisions about using certain medicines or surgical procedures. Other persons may view the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses as more of a moral or legal question. They may think in terms of the right to life, authority to make decisions about one’s own body, or the civil obligations of the government to protect the lives of its citizens. These aspects all bear on the matter. Yet the stand taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is above all a religious one; it is a position based on what the Bible says.

8 Many persons may wonder about the validity of the above statement. They are aware that numerous churches support the use of blood, establishing blood-bank programs and encouraging the donation of blood. Accordingly, the question logically arises:



What does the Bible say about humans taking blood into their bodies?

9 Even individuals who do not personally view the Bible to be the inspired word of God must acknowledge that it has much to say about blood. From the first book of the Bible through to the last, “blood is mentioned more than four hundred times. Certain Bible verses are especially pertinent to the question of sustaining life with blood. Let us briefly examine them:

10 The Bible record shows that early in mankind’s history the Creator and Life-Giver expressed himself on the issue of blood. Right after the global flood, when God first granted humans the right to eat animal flesh, he commanded Noah and his family: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.—Genesis 9:3, 4.

11 First of all, the Creator was providing a dietary regulation at a time when mankind was making a new start. (Compare Genesis 1:29.) God showed, however, that in killing animals for food more was involved than diet. That was because the blood of a creature represented its life or its soul. Thus, some Bible translations render Genesis 9:4 as: “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.—Revised Standard Version; Moffatt.

12 So this divine regulation was not merely a restriction on diet, such as a doctor’s advising a patient to avoid salt or fat. The Creator attached a highly important moral principle to blood. In pouring out all the blood that reasonably could be drained out, Noah and his descendants would manifest their regard for the fact that life was from and depended upon the Creator. But let us examine this matter further.

13 The above-quoted scripture applies to animal blood. Would the same principle apply to human blood? Yes, with even stronger force. For God went on to say to Noah: “Besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. . . . Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man. (Genesis 9:5, 6) Now, if animal blood (representing animal life) was of sacred significance to God, obviously human blood had a sacred significance of even greater value. Persons complying with these divine directions would not be shedding the blood of (killing) humans, nor would they be eating either animal or human blood.

[abbey]

Hiya Atrut, welcome :-6

Just a quickie,

would a JW be allowed to have blood taken and stored, before an op just in case a transfusion is nessasary?

[Bill Sikes]

abbey;562774 wrote: Hiya Atrut, welcome :-6

Just a quickie,

would a JW be allowed to have blood taken and stored, before an op just in case a transfusion is nessasary?


Not according to current practice (I looked it up!). However, it's not *entirely*

black-and-white. Quite interesting, IMO, in fact!

[Ciao, Bella!]

JW's are not the only ones who cherish life, and think it sacred, who refrain from smoking, drinking, and avoid abortions. Christians, Islamists, Muslims and Buddhists come to mind in that refrain.



However, in researching blood transfusions, I came across this:



http://www.ajwrb.org/misc/ray.htm



It's much too long to post here, but the author is Ray Franz, a former JW who worked at JW world headquarters for a number of years. Mr. Franz came to the realization that his faith was wrong, and eventually was disfellowshipped.



One portion of this writing stands out boldy: "Leukocytes, often called "white blood cells," are also prohibited. In reality the term "white blood cells" is rather misleading. This is because most leukocytes in a person's body actually exist outside the blood system. one's body contains about 2 to 3 kilos of leukocytes and only about 2-3 percent of this is in the blood system. The other 97-98 percent is spread throughout the body tissue, forming its defense (or immune) system.7

This means that a person receiving an organ transplant will simultaneously receive into his body more foreign leukocytes than if he had accepted a blood transfusion. Since the Watch Tower organization now allows organ transplantation's, its adamant stand against leukocytes, while allowing other blood components, becomes meaningless. It could only be defended by use of convoluted reasonings, certainly not on any moral, rational or logical grounds. The arbitrary splitting of the blood into "major" and "minor" components is also seen to be without sound basis. The organization evidently prohibits plasma--though mainly water--because of its volume (55% of the blood), yet it prohibits leukocytes which compose less than one percent of the blood!"8 "



It all makes for very interesting reading.

[Ted]

atrut:-6

Welcome. I do hope you enjoy your stay with us.

That being said, what you posted above changes my mind in no way. If someone who is mature enough makes an informed decision to refuse a blood transfusion than I have no problem with that. Personally I think it is a bad move but that is their choice.

When it comes to children or infants they are not capable of making an informed choice so the state is obligated morally and legally to interfere.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ciao, Bella!]

:-6 Ted, you've hit the nail on the head.:-6

[Accountable]

That's fine, until that nail goes through your foot.

[Ciao, Bella!]

Been there, done that. What about you?

[911]

I think every adult has the right to make their own decisions when it comes to their beliefs. I don't care what they believe or what rules their life. But, when it comes to children, I believe we should try everything the parents request and then go for the tried and true---anything to save a childs life.

I will tell you that two years ago, after surgery, I started bleeding out. I wasn't told anything until they came in with the blood and then I was told I was bleeding out. I told the nurses I was afraid of taking the blood. I was afraid of diseases. But I was more afraid of dying. Bleeding out is sneaky and gives your mind and body no tell tale signs it's happening.

They gave me two pints and it stopped. Every now and then I sort of freak and and think, eewww, someone elses blood is in my body. It's a weird feeling for me. Most people don't think about it and go on their merry way. But it creeps up on me and I freak a little. But, regardless of all that, it saved my life. So, I have only good reasons to thank that person for giving blood.

I cannot imagine what a difficult choice it must be for a parent to refuse any kind of medical help for their child. That is one determined person in their belief.

My question is, when the courts overrule a parent and save a childs life through means abhorent to the parent, do the parents treat the child any differently? Does the church oust the family or embrace them? Will that child or family be treated any differently from the rest of the congregation after they receive unwanted medical help?

I am not being ugly here, this is a real question I have after reading all these posts. We have discussed everything up to the point of whether or not to do it. But what happens after it's done?

[Ted]

911:-6

You do indeed close with some very good questions and I too would like to hear the answers.

I don't think you need to think about someone else's blood being in your body if more than 2 months have passed. Those cells would be dead and your body would have disposed of them. Actually I think it's one month but to be on the safe side I will give it two.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ciao, Bella!]

911, I agree with Ted. Your questions made me stop and think, as I'd never looked at it in that light before.



I do wonder if there is a difference afterward?

[911]

Ted;564032 wrote: 911:-6

You do indeed close with some very good questions and I too would like to hear the answers.

I don't think you need to think about someone else's blood being in your body if more than 2 months have passed. Those cells would be dead and your body would have disposed of them. Actually I think it's one month but to be on the safe side I will give it two.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Thanks, Ted. that makes me feel better. It's been a while since I've studied biology! :wah: