In most cases the parents want the court to intervene. They want the child to be saved but do not want to be seen to allow the treatment.
They should get the legal bill.
But it's allowed under the terms of their doctrine (I posted it earlier), so why would they even need the courts to intervene to save their own belief? I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, just failing to understand why a parent who's part of a religious group that allows children to be treated with a blood transfusion would need the courts to intervene to save the child's life.
It's almost as if the parents have taken it to the extreme and think their child is no longer a JW if he/she gets treatment that is banned for adults.
Yeah I agree. Just look at the amount of aborted babies.
I would be far more interested to know your views on the topic of the thread, which so far you've avoided. Especially as you posted this emotional blackmail from the JW publication
I would be far more interested to know your views on the topic of the thread, which so far you've avoided. Especially as you posted this emotional blackmail from the JW publication
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?'
"Without the use of blood" does NOT allow the LIVING child it's right to life. How can you even try to justify that? Please explain because I cannot grasp such cruelty to any living human being. A proper explanation would be welcome. NOT side-lining and evading the issue with the wrongs of abortion.
"Without the use of blood" does NOT allow the LIVING child it's right to life. How can you even try to justify that? Please explain because I cannot grasp such cruelty to any living human being. A proper explanation would be welcome. NOT side-lining and evading the issue with the wrongs of abortion.
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?
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?
More side-lining and evasion. Please enlighten me. How many living humans have died from not receiving blood transfusions?
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 the courts should be able to intervene or not? It's really not a difficult question.
Of course they should up until the age they can make and understand the choice to refuse themselves.
Another thing I wonder is if someone refuses lifesaving treatment for themselves should that be classed as suicide as they have in a way chosen to die.
Yeah alright, I'll let you play your little games, I've better things to do.
I am not playing your little evasion games either. Yes I fully understand you would have better things to do than plead ignorance trying to justify such a hypocritical unjustifiable argument. Very sad.
Blood transfusions, Operations , Medicine = Heal
The so called power of prayer and faith = Kills.
Regardless of Age, if a person has a chance of getting better then doctors should be able to do their jobs, even if it takes a court order to do so. Religion has no place in deciding if someone lives or dies !.
Judge allows Jehovah's Witness baby to have blood transfusions despite parents' objections. Link
I've quoted the headline as it appears in the newspaper and my first point is that I object strongly to the baby being described as being a Jehovah's Witness, the baby is not a JW, the baby is just that, a baby, it's the infant's parents who are JW.
Now to my second point which is, had the courts not intervened and the baby had died because of his parents' objections and misguided beliefs, should they themselves be brought before the courts and charged with manslaughter, or even worse, murder?
Yes, they should be overruled immediately. They are in effect, condemning their child to die, simply because of a half witted religious belief.
Yeah alright, I'll let you play your little games, I've better things to do.
I don't believe that anne_666 is playing games, she's simply asking you to back up your argument with evidence, something that you cannot or will not do. I presume, from your replies, that you are a JW yourself?
I don't believe that anne_666 is playing games, she's simply asking you to back up your argument with evidence, something that you cannot or will not do. I presume, from your replies, that you are a JW yourself?
Read through your posts and their subsequent responses with a view to answering the questions. I include the question that I asked in the response quoted, you haven't answered that, either.
Read through your posts and their subsequent responses with a view to answering the questions. I include the question that I asked in the response quoted, you haven't answered that, either.
You don't know do you.?You've jumped in but you don't know what it is you want me to back up? Goodness sake.
Ps if you don't know what people are discussing, it's best not to get involved.
I don't believe that anne_666 is playing games, she's simply asking you to back up your argument with evidence, something that you cannot or will not do. I presume, from your replies, that you are a JW yourself?
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.
In most cases the parents want the court to intervene. They want the child to be saved but do not want to be seen to allow the treatment.
They should get the legal bill.
If that's the way they feel, they should leave their group. That's a bit like not sticking up for the weaker kid when they're being bullied by the popular kid, even though you want to stick up for the weaker kid.
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?
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.
Comments
But it's allowed under the terms of their doctrine (I posted it earlier), so why would they even need the courts to intervene to save their own belief? I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, just failing to understand why a parent who's part of a religious group that allows children to be treated with a blood transfusion would need the courts to intervene to save the child's life.
It's almost as if the parents have taken it to the extreme and think their child is no longer a JW if he/she gets treatment that is banned for adults.
I would be far more interested to know your views on the topic of the thread, which so far you've avoided. Especially as you posted this emotional blackmail from the JW publication
http://www.heavensinspirations.com/diary-unborn-baby.html
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?'
"Without the use of blood" does NOT allow the LIVING child it's right to life. How can you even try to justify that? Please explain because I cannot grasp such cruelty to any living human being. A proper explanation would be welcome. NOT side-lining and evading the issue with the wrongs of abortion.
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?
More side-lining and evasion. Please enlighten me. How many living humans have died from not receiving blood transfusions?
You tell me!
Do you think the courts should be able to intervene or not? It's really not a difficult question.
More evasion. Back up your argument with something please?
Back up what argument?
You obviously can't then I take it?
Another thing I wonder is if someone refuses lifesaving treatment for themselves should that be classed as suicide as they have in a way chosen to die.
I really don't know what you are talking about. I'll ask again. What argument?
Oh I really think you do.
Yeah alright, I'll let you play your little games, I've better things to do.
I am not playing your little evasion games either. Yes I fully understand you would have better things to do than plead ignorance trying to justify such a hypocritical unjustifiable argument. Very sad.
The so called power of prayer and faith = Kills.
Regardless of Age, if a person has a chance of getting better then doctors should be able to do their jobs, even if it takes a court order to do so. Religion has no place in deciding if someone lives or dies !.
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.
I don't believe that anne_666 is playing games, she's simply asking you to back up your argument with evidence, something that you cannot or will not do. I presume, from your replies, that you are a JW yourself?
What argument?
Read through your posts and their subsequent responses with a view to answering the questions. I include the question that I asked in the response quoted, you haven't answered that, either.
You don't know do you.?You've jumped in but you don't know what it is you want me to back up? Goodness sake.
Ps if you don't know what people are discussing, it's best not to get involved.
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.
If that's the way they feel, they should leave their group. That's a bit like not sticking up for the weaker kid when they're being bullied by the popular kid, even though you want to stick up for the weaker kid.
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.