Should the courts intervene when a lifesaving transfusion is denied by a JW parent?

124»

Comments

  • Summer BreezeSummer Breeze Posts: 4,399
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    anne_666 wrote: »
    Especially as you posted this emotional blackmail from the JW publication

    http://www.heavensinspirations.com/diary-unborn-baby.html

    That link is not from a JW publication, it looks like it is something from a Born Again Christian publication to me.
  • ~Twinkle~~Twinkle~ Posts: 8,165
    Forum Member
    skipjack79 wrote: »
    You should check out his posts in some of the religious threads on here. Just a word of warning, you're dealing with a bona fide young earth creationist, "evolution and science are tricks of the devil", frothing at the mouth with religious fervour fundamentalist.

    Ahh .. thanks for that. I don't usually do the religion threads and had no idea. Your post is much appreciated. ;-) xx
  • imrightokimrightok Posts: 8,492
    Forum Member
    ~Twinkle~ wrote: »
    Ahh .. thanks for that. I don't usually do the religion threads and had no idea. Your post is much appreciated. ;-) xx


    And yet you ignore my question. I'm still waiting to find out what argument I'm meant to be backing up. When you've found what I was supposed to have said, give us a call.
  • imrightokimrightok Posts: 8,492
    Forum Member
    zx50 wrote: »
    Sometimes abortions are necessary. For instance, in a case where the mother's been told that she could die when giving birth. I don't agree with getting abortions just because you don't want a child though. I think that's basically treating the value of a human life as if you were simply cancelling an order for something.

    I agree.
  • jasvinyljasvinyl Posts: 14,631
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    imrightok wrote: »
    Sorry but I can't take seriously the BIB from people who ok abortions. They are 'living human beings'. There is no side-lining of anything. How many children have you heard of who have died after not having a blood transfusion. You do realise that there is such a thing as bloodless surgery. A person is not bound to die without having blood; can the same be said for the baby of abortion?

    Do you think there is ever a need for someone to have an abortion? If you can think of any criterion where you would accept that it is indeed necessary, any reason at all, you are in fact pro-choice, albeit within your own personal acceptance level. It's just that your idea of what is an acceptable reason is not necessarily the same as others, and just as they would hopefully never wish to impose their will onto you, you, in my opinion, should never wish to impose your will onto them.

    If, on the other hand, you are adamant that no abortion should ever be performed under any circumstances, well, that's a true pro-life stance, and while many people would say that we should respect the opinions of others, that is certainly one that I could never have respect for. it's fairly despicable, if you think about it.
  • darkjedimasterdarkjedimaster Posts: 18,620
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    Sometimes abortions are necessary. For instance, in a case where the mother's been told that she could die when giving birth. I don't agree with getting abortions just because you don't want a child though. I think that's basically treating the value of a human life as if you were simply cancelling an order for something.

    Exactly, wasn't there a case last year in Ireland, of a pregnant woman dying because some tool at the hospital told her that she couldn't have an abortion as she was in a Catholic country & then that resulted in computations that led to her death.
  • ElyanElyan Posts: 8,781
    Forum Member
    blueblade wrote: »
    Yes, they should be overruled immediately. They are in effect, condemning their child to die, simply because of a half witted religious belief.

    The state should NEVER allow that to happen.

    Is the correct answer.

    These people are weirdos. There is some case for their children being removed from them anyway to protect them from the cult.
  • imrightokimrightok Posts: 8,492
    Forum Member
    jasvinyl wrote: »
    Do you think there is ever a need for someone to have an abortion? If you can think of any criterion where you would accept that it is indeed necessary, any reason at all, you are in fact pro-choice, albeit within your own personal acceptance level. It's just that your idea of what is an acceptable reason is not necessarily the same as others, and just as they would hopefully never wish to impose their will onto you, you, in my opinion, should never wish to impose your will onto them.

    If, on the other hand, you are adamant that no abortion should ever be performed under any circumstances, well, that's a true pro-life stance, and while many people would say that we should respect the opinions of others, that is certainly one that I could never have respect for. it's fairly despicable, if you think about it.

    My stance is its not up to me to decide what a stranger does. Yes I have an opinion but at the end of the day there is not much that I can do.

    However ,like I said, I find it hypocritical of some to pontificate about what they consider is immoral whilst nodding and even supporting abortions and then claiming it's not a life but a foetus in order to dehumanise the baby.
  • skipjack79skipjack79 Posts: 3,250
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Elyan wrote: »
    Is the correct answer.

    These people are weirdos. There is some case for their children being removed from them anyway to protect them from the cult.

    I agree. Certain religious types should not be allowed to raise children in the first place, in my opinion.
  • ~Twinkle~~Twinkle~ Posts: 8,165
    Forum Member
    imrightok wrote: »
    My stance is its not up to me to decide what a stranger does. Yes I have an opinion but at the end of the day there is not much that I can do.

    However ,like I said, I find it hypocritical of some to pontificate about what they consider is immoral whilst nodding and even supporting abortions and then claiming it's not a life but a foetus in order to dehumanise the baby.

    You've supported it in certain cases!! Hypocrite much. :kitty:
  • jasvinyljasvinyl Posts: 14,631
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    imrightok wrote: »
    My stance is its not up to me to decide what a stranger does. Yes I have an opinion but at the end of the day there is not much that I can do.

    However ,like I said, I find it hypocritical of some to pontificate about what they consider is immoral whilst nodding and even supporting abortions and then claiming it's not a life but a foetus in order to dehumanise the baby.

    As you know, other people - and the law in this country - acknowledge the difference, and your original suggestion that doing so is used as a device to make someone "feel better" was both cynical and unkind, in my opinion.

    I am glad that you are pro-choice.
  • Jesse PinkmanJesse Pinkman Posts: 5,794
    Forum Member
    Yes!

    When someone is mentally incapable of making rational decisions for themselves and others, then the law has always been able to administer care, by force if required, when necessary.

    Religion is no different.

    We already see someone who decides to strap a bomb to themselves and endanger other people's lives in the name of religion as dangerous nutters, so why not anyone else who endangers someone's life in the name of complete claptrap?
  • skipjack79skipjack79 Posts: 3,250
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We already see someone who decides to strap a bomb to themselves and endanger other people's lives in the name of religion as dangerous nutters, so why not anyone else who endangers someone's life in the name of complete claptrap?

    I think religious people who wish to raise children, should be required to fill in some form of application in order to be granted a licence to proceed. Those with worrying levels of religiosity should have their applications refused.
  • imrightokimrightok Posts: 8,492
    Forum Member
    jasvinyl wrote: »
    As you know, other people - and the law in this country - acknowledge the difference, and your original suggestion that doing so is used as a device to make someone "feel better" was both cynical and unkind, in my opinion.

    I am glad that you are pro-choice.

    I don't really care what the country or other people think. Over one hundred thousand babies killed in this country alone in one year. North Korea aren't any different.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 229
    Forum Member
    imrightok wrote: »
    I don't really care what the country or other people think. Over one hundred thousand babies killed in this country alone in one year. North Korea aren't any different.

    Have you bothered to say whether you think courts should be able to intervene yet or are you too determined to derail this thread?

    If you want to talk about abortion so much why don't you start a new thread and spout your hyperbole there?
  • UKMikeyUKMikey Posts: 28,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A fairly promising thread until someone decided to derail it by weighing in an unrelated agenda.

    I believe the courts have a duty to intervene in cases like the one described in the OP.
  • SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,131
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    skipjack79 wrote: »
    You should check out his posts in some of the religious threads on here. Just a word of warning, you're dealing with a bona fide young earth creationist, "evolution and science are tricks of the devil", frothing at the mouth with religious fervour fundamentalist.

    :D

    In fairness I stuck with the thread, and imrightok did (unwittingly?) concede the Earth was probably more than a few thousand years old. But the rest is still up for debate...
  • wallsterwallster Posts: 17,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    kippeh wrote: »
    Yes, the State should intervene, as it has a duty to one of its citizens if its biological parents are unable to understand or consent to a procedure that in the opinion of medical experts, gives that person the best chance of life. Woolly beliefs and other superstitions should be disregarded.

    I completely agree.
  • imrightokimrightok Posts: 8,492
    Forum Member
    Semierotic wrote: »
    :D

    In fairness I stuck with the thread, and imrightok did (unwittingly?) concede the Earth was probably more than a few thousand years old. But the rest is still up for debate...

    What do you mean' concede' as though I was debating it?
  • jasvinyljasvinyl Posts: 14,631
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    imrightok wrote: »
    I don't really care what the country or other people think. Over one hundred thousand babies killed in this country alone in one year. North Korea aren't any different.

    You obviously do care what other people/countries think, with a passion, I would say.

    However, you've said that it's not up to you what an individual chooses to do (which I completely agree with); anything else is purely subjective.

    I'll leave the conversation there, as it's really not for this thread. Just as you perhaps do, I tend to get a bee in a bonnet about things I feel strongly about, but I'm not going to derail this thread any more than it has already been. I think you've made your point, and so have I. So, if you want to go further with it, I'll leave it to you.
  • anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That link is not from a JW publication, it looks like it is something from a Born Again Christian publication to me.

    This is where it originates. The link I gave was posted by Imrightok on another thread
    A bit of digging brought out where it came from.
    Abortion wrong. Blood tansfusions wrong.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_an_Unborn_Child
  • anne_666anne_666 Posts: 72,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    imrightok wrote: »
    That's nice that you want to know what I think. Well let's compare the two.

    One says to the Dr' can you do all in your power and skills to help my child but without the use of blood? '.

    The other one says to the Dr' could you get rid of this baby for me?'
    imrightok wrote: »
    Sorry but I can't take seriously the BIB from people who ok abortions. They are 'living human beings'. There is no side-lining of anything. How many children have you heard of who have died after not having a blood transfusion. You do realise that there is such a thing as bloodless surgery. A person is not bound to die without having blood; can the same be said for the baby of abortion?
    imrightok wrote: »
    My stance is its not up to me to decide what a stranger does. Yes I have an opinion but at the end of the day there is not much that I can do.

    However ,like I said, I find it hypocritical of some to pontificate about what they consider is immoral whilst nodding and even supporting abortions and then claiming it's not a life but a foetus in order to dehumanise the baby.

    If that is directed at me again! you have absolutely no idea what my stance is on abortion. This thread is supposed to be about blood transfusions which you also disagree with. Killing an unborn child is wrong . Killing a live human being is right according to you. You haven't justified this frightening hypocrisy at all . You've sidelined with the utter nonsense above and more besides.
  • Keyser_Soze1Keyser_Soze1 Posts: 25,182
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes they bloody should.

    I get sick of all these cults getting special treatment in modern western democracies (and any religion is simply a cult that got too big for it's boots).

    Fine if the parents want to believe in fairytales, but that stops when a child's life is put in danger. This happens a lot in the States but of course half the population there believes the earth is six-thousand years old. :confused:

    People like this shut be ignored, and if possible prosecuted for neglect.
Sign In or Register to comment.