Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Jenny Collins]

You just..er.. did.



Jenny, I just wrote that this isn't something I will have to face, probably, at least on the medical front. Indeed, I can't think of a single belief we have that would force us to prove our faith by putting only our children at risk, as risible as you might think them.



My beliefs may well be very silly to those who don't agree with them, this is true; however nothing you have written about my beliefs, whether accurate or not, will kill anybody...much less my children. Unless, of course, someone who thinks my beliefs are silly go from exclamation points to violence. However, if that happens (as it has) the fault is on them, not me.



I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying in this sentence.

Jenny, are you against abortion? Really....are you? If you support it and the rights of the woman being overwhelmingly more important than the life of the unborn, then never mind. This is simply an extension of that attitude.

However, if you are against it, then consider: does YOUR right to live your religion supersede someone ELSE'S life, even the life of your child?

I don't think it does. However, in case I was not clear enough, here is my position on this, made as clearly as I can.

If there is a possibility that something OTHER than a blood transfusion is available and would do the job, why then....you are the parent and it is your right. However, if the ONLY thing that will save your child's life is a blood transfusion, and that blood transfusion WILL save that life, then those who are taking care of him would be committing murder if they allowed him to die because YOUR religious beliefs said no. Do your religious beliefs trump theirs? Does your belief that God doesn't want you to 'take in blood' mean more than their belief that murder is a bad thing?

Consider: in 120 days or sooner, all traces of that blood transfusion will be gone. If you allow your child to die, he'll still be dead in 120 days. I'm not certain, so I'm asking in all seriousness here; if the decision is taken out of your hands and your child is saved by a blood transfusion you did not want, will you blame/ostracize/shun the child? Is HE now tainted beyond saving? If so, I can understand why you would be upset: either way, you lose him. Could he repent of something he had no say in, and return to the fold? I'm asking these questions because I honestly do not know, but also to make a point.

Finally...

I do not blame, or criticize, those parents who hold to their beliefs even in the face of laws which will force them to stand by and watch someone else save their children's lives. Well, I don't understand it, completely, but I can't blame them. However, I also do not blame the law or the doctors who will not stand by and allow a child to die when they can save him with a transfusion.

...and as the recipient of blood products at a time when the choice was indeed 'do it or die,' I do understand that such events happen. I'm glad that science is finding alternatives. I'm all for better alternatives and their use. However, I have considerably more sympathy for the doctor who refuses to be forced to commit murder to assuage the religious beliefs of someone else, and for the child whose life is at stake. Save that life and let him repent later. it is, after all, not his fault.

No, I was not trying to be disrespectful of your beliefs! But when people from other religions come to a post and discuss how JWs should live their lives and how authorities should handle them then I have to turn the tables a bit! If some belief of yours conflicted with human law, you would have to follow your belief! If a belief of YOURS, put your child at risk, you would HAVE to follow your belief! If you wouldn't, your religion and God doesn't mean a lot to you when a real test comes along!

So assuming that you are a good Mormon, you would put your child at risk if it meant doing as God said! So it is reasons that you object to, not the act of putting the child at risk if the reason is right! So what you object to about JWs is the REASON they might put their child at risk! You believe we are risking our child's life for nothing, so the law should get involved!

Therefore I would question YOUR beliefs! I think that believing that blood transfusions are wrong because the Bible says: "Abstain from blood" is more valid than a man producing a book that the angel Moroni gave him, and then telling people not to drink hot beverages, and they would become gods of their own planet, is stranger than thinking you have to abstain from blood, when the Bible says abstain from blood!

That is not razzing you for your beliefs! Your beliefs are fair game for me because you came to this post to discuss us and our beliefs! So in the context of this discussion, I bring up your beliefs to prove a point, not to make fun of you

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes, but you will notice that he did not, after all, have to do that.



Jenny, I'm a Mormon. That means that I can in all honesty and with all respect for the bible as scripture, say 'the winners write the history."



Yes. THEY were willing to die for their beliefs. Please note that they didn't throw OTHER youths into the fire, but stepped in themselves. You refuse transfusions for yourself; that is absolutely your right.



Yes....and if the doctor believes that God requires him to save the life of a child? Do your beliefs (which would, in the very rare occasions we are speaking about here, kill him) trump his that he should not murder? Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifist, yes? They will not fight or join the military in any capacity? How does that square with your willingness to allow someone else to die because you impose your beliefs upon him?

BTW, I honor true pacifists and have absolutely no problems with your stance on this. If you had ever read the Book of Mormon you would know why that is, but again, that's an entirely different conversation.



good, because we don't believe that. Jenny....I thought you weren't going to make fun of my beliefs?



No problem. That I don't drink coffee, tea or booze doesn't make doing so a sin FOR YOU. In addition, my NOT drinking coffee or tea doesn't affect you or my child. It doesn't put anybody at risk, and unless you can find one of my beliefs that DOES put a child at the risk of actually dying, my beliefs are not pertinent to this conversation, are they?

However, the coffee/tea thing does illustrate a point here that I think you might not be getting.

Yes, I abstain from coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol. I also wear Temple garments and believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture as well as the Bible, and other things that you have stated are silly. That's not a problem; my beliefs do not have any impact upon yours or the way you live your life. They do not put your child at physical risk. If you were a nurse or doctor in a hospital, my beliefs would not force you to abandon your religious and ethical beliefs.

YOUR beliefs, however, do....and what makes you think that your beliefs trump theirs in something this serious? Now if YOU were the one refusing a life saving blood transfusion, no problem. Your beliefs, your right; that is well established for all sorts of things. The problem here is when your beliefs put someone who either doesn't share them, or who is too young to understand what's happening and unable to make such decisions for him/herself. I'm very glad that research has found alternatives to blood products that narrow these events down. I hope that eventually such discoveries will make these events a thing of the past; that there is no time at which one can say 'blood transfusion or die." However, that time hasn't come quite yet. These events are rare...but they happen.

So the question is: in such a case, do your religious beliefs....which will result in the death of a child...trump the doctor's, whose lack of action means that she is committing murder according to her beliefs, and the irreversible death of that child?

I've said that this will probably never happen to me...at least, I can't think of anything that would do that, so it's not a question I have to ask myself. However, I think you need to ask it of yourself. Seriously.

Do you believe that if the beliefs are CORRECT, that one must do what God says no matter what?

 

[Jenny Collins]

We

Then you are not bound by any of the Jewish laws, so why do you then pick and choose the Jewish laws you wish to follow while at the same time blaming others for not following the Jewish laws you choose to observe?

The Jewish Laws do not forbid us from abstaining from blood! In Genesis before the Law, the sanctity of blood was made known, and because of this it was incorporated into the Law code! Then when the Law was lifted, the ban on blood was still carried over to Christians! Blood was still banned, but not a part of the Mosaic Law anymore, just still banned! Similar example is that the Law code condemned stealing! The whole law code disappeared! Kaput! But that doesn't mean that Christians can steal!

I work in a hospital and the HIPPA act was instituted several years ago and we have to be very careful about handling people's privacy! However, if the HIPPA law was removed and some other reworked Law took place, it would still include the order to not blab people's medical information to just anyone! The details of the new law would be different but certain things would carry over!

 

[Jenny Collins]

You just..er.. did.



Jenny, I just wrote that this isn't something I will have to face, probably, at least on the medical front. Indeed, I can't think of a single belief we have that would force us to prove our faith by putting only our children at risk, as risible as you might think them.



My beliefs may well be very silly to those who don't agree with them, this is true; however nothing you have written about my beliefs, whether accurate or not, will kill anybody...much less my children. Unless, of course, someone who thinks my beliefs are silly go from exclamation points to violence. However, if that happens (as it has) the fault is on them, not me.



I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying in this sentence.

Jenny, are you against abortion? Really....are you? If you support it and the rights of the woman being overwhelmingly more important than the life of the unborn, then never mind. This is simply an extension of that attitude.

However, if you are against it, then consider: does YOUR right to live your religion supersede someone ELSE'S life, even the life of your child?

I don't think it does. However, in case I was not clear enough, here is my position on this, made as clearly as I can.

If there is a possibility that something OTHER than a blood transfusion is available and would do the job, why then....you are the parent and it is your right. However, if the ONLY thing that will save your child's life is a blood transfusion, and that blood transfusion WILL save that life, then those who are taking care of him would be committing murder if they allowed him to die because YOUR religious beliefs said no. Do your religious beliefs trump theirs? Does your belief that God doesn't want you to 'take in blood' mean more than their belief that murder is a bad thing?

Consider: in 120 days or sooner, all traces of that blood transfusion will be gone. If you allow your child to die, he'll still be dead in 120 days. I'm not certain, so I'm asking in all seriousness here; if the decision is taken out of your hands and your child is saved by a blood transfusion you did not want, will you blame/ostracize/shun the child? Is HE now tainted beyond saving? If so, I can understand why you would be upset: either way, you lose him. Could he repent of something he had no say in, and return to the fold? I'm asking these questions because I honestly do not know, but also to make a point.

Finally...

I do not blame, or criticize, those parents who hold to their beliefs even in the face of laws which will force them to stand by and watch someone else save their children's lives. Well, I don't understand it, completely, but I can't blame them. However, I also do not blame the law or the doctors who will not stand by and allow a child to die when they can save him with a transfusion.

...and as the recipient of blood products at a time when the choice was indeed 'do it or die,' I do understand that such events happen. I'm glad that science is finding alternatives. I'm all for better alternatives and their use. However, I have considerably more sympathy for the doctor who refuses to be forced to commit murder to assuage the religious beliefs of someone else, and for the child whose life is at stake. Save that life and let him repent later. it is, after all, not his fault.

Does my right to follow my conscience and put my own life at risk, mean that I should put someone else's life at risk? If they are my child, yes! God made us responsible for our children's life and they are in our care! If something is wrong in God's eyes it is wrong for us and our children!

By the way, a JW was talking to a Mormon and asked him if he believed in fighting in war for his country! He said yes! He then asked him if that meant killing a fellow Mormon in another country would he do it, and the Mormon said Yes!

So this Mormon would kill a fellow believer for his country! But you object to us potentially letting our child die for our God! That is if all Mormons think that way! And if they would fight in war, they do, because they could potentially kill a fellow believer! So you would take a human life for your country!
But fault us for putting a life at risk for our God!

Then the JW asked the same Mormons, if our government ordered them to drink coffee, would they? And the Mormon said "No"! Even if the government would kill them

 

[Jenny Collins]

You just..er.. did.



Jenny, I just wrote that this isn't something I will have to face, probably, at least on the medical front. Indeed, I can't think of a single belief we have that would force us to prove our faith by putting only our children at risk, as risible as you might think them.



My beliefs may well be very silly to those who don't agree with them, this is true; however nothing you have written about my beliefs, whether accurate or not, will kill anybody...much less my children. Unless, of course, someone who thinks my beliefs are silly go from exclamation points to violence. However, if that happens (as it has) the fault is on them, not me.



I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying in this sentence.

Jenny, are you against abortion? Really....are you? If you support it and the rights of the woman being overwhelmingly more important than the life of the unborn, then never mind. This is simply an extension of that attitude.

However, if you are against it, then consider: does YOUR right to live your religion supersede someone ELSE'S life, even the life of your child?

I don't think it does. However, in case I was not clear enough, here is my position on this, made as clearly as I can.

If there is a possibility that something OTHER than a blood transfusion is available and would do the job, why then....you are the parent and it is your right. However, if the ONLY thing that will save your child's life is a blood transfusion, and that blood transfusion WILL save that life, then those who are taking care of him would be committing murder if they allowed him to die because YOUR religious beliefs said no. Do your religious beliefs trump theirs? Does your belief that God doesn't want you to 'take in blood' mean more than their belief that murder is a bad thing?

Consider: in 120 days or sooner, all traces of that blood transfusion will be gone. If you allow your child to die, he'll still be dead in 120 days. I'm not certain, so I'm asking in all seriousness here; if the decision is taken out of your hands and your child is saved by a blood transfusion you did not want, will you blame/ostracize/shun the child? Is HE now tainted beyond saving? If so, I can understand why you would be upset: either way, you lose him. Could he repent of something he had no say in, and return to the fold? I'm asking these questions because I honestly do not know, but also to make a point.

Finally...

I do not blame, or criticize, those parents who hold to their beliefs even in the face of laws which will force them to stand by and watch someone else save their children's lives. Well, I don't understand it, completely, but I can't blame them. However, I also do not blame the law or the doctors who will not stand by and allow a child to die when they can save him with a transfusion.

...and as the recipient of blood products at a time when the choice was indeed 'do it or die,' I do understand that such events happen. I'm glad that science is finding alternatives. I'm all for better alternatives and their use. However, I have considerably more sympathy for the doctor who refuses to be forced to commit murder to assuage the religious beliefs of someone else, and for the child whose life is at stake. Save that life and let him repent later. it is, after all, not his fault.

Let's put it this way: God gave life? You would agree with that! God can take life back for his reasons! Correct? If he says don't do such and such, then it is God who is taking the life of the child, not JWs! We as the messengers of God, and doers of what he tells us, get the flack! Jesus even said not to take it personally, because it is him and God they hate, not us!

 

[Jenny Collins]

I am saying that the majority consensus sides with the majority scientific conclusion, not yours.

*

Science does not side with transfusions being safe! The studies show they aren't! Majority, even in the medical society sometimes, may be ignorant of the science or at least not bother to understand the risks! But the evidence is out there!

I live in a city of around 100, 000 and my ex husband had complications from Cancer surgery! There were options and treatments in existence that the local doctors were unaware of, but other doctors on the cutting edge did know of them!

We found this out because my husband's sister is a Veterinary Professor in a big city and had also worked at a teaching hospital prior to this! The teaching hospital had a veterinary department and also part of it was medicine for people!

My sister in law used this surgery with animals, and it existed for humans too! Therefore the surgery existed but some doctors were ignorant of the better approach!

My ex husband's (at the time we were married) mother had a local doctor tell her they would need to remove her foot, but my sister in law consulted with the doctors at the teaching hospital, they brought her there and they saved the foot!

The majority of doctors are not cutting edge, and are even ignorant and backwards in many ways

 

[Jenny Collins]

I told the people here months back, - "before your posts," - about my medical emergency medevac - and that this was the reason I hadn't posted for months. I was in surgery and then recovery. You can go to my page and read one of my replies concerning such. Check the date.

However - what does this have to do with our debate? - other then the FACT that I am alive ONLY because of blood transfusions?

The majority in science, medical fields, etc., don't agree with you. That is just the way it is.

*

A co-worker showed me her toe! The doctor had removed the bone in it and she can move it around like a piece of spaghetti!

Then later other doctors laughed about it and said: "Oh, yeah we know that doctor! His solution to everything is to remove the bone"

He was an old doctor, not abreast on new options!

While some of these doctors in my city may not be old, they are not as experienced as the cutting edge doctors, and when the better treatments or the new way of thinking comes along, it takes time before the ones who were schooled to think a certain way, come around! They may not hear of every new piece of evidence, maybe don't have time to read the latest medical journals, or have a resistance to change their minds!

Remember the days when the surgeon general defended cigarette smoking? I was reading a dated medical article of a doctor saying that he did not believe the HIV virus caused AIDS!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Lets face it, if this was such a big deal to God, then wouldn't he have the intelligence to explain himself better ?.

The apostles asked Jesus why he spoke in parables and riddles to the pharisees and crowds, and he explained that it wasn't granted to them to understand! They have "ears, but cannot hear" and "eyes but cannot see" People with the right heart and motives, dig deep and find the meaning

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes, but you will notice that he did not, after all, have to do that.



Jenny, I'm a Mormon. That means that I can in all honesty and with all respect for the bible as scripture, say 'the winners write the history."



Yes. THEY were willing to die for their beliefs. Please note that they didn't throw OTHER youths into the fire, but stepped in themselves. You refuse transfusions for yourself; that is absolutely your right.



Yes....and if the doctor believes that God requires him to save the life of a child? Do your beliefs (which would, in the very rare occasions we are speaking about here, kill him) trump his that he should not murder? Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifist, yes? They will not fight or join the military in any capacity? How does that square with your willingness to allow someone else to die because you impose your beliefs upon him?

BTW, I honor true pacifists and have absolutely no problems with your stance on this. If you had ever read the Book of Mormon you would know why that is, but again, that's an entirely different conversation.



good, because we don't believe that. Jenny....I thought you weren't going to make fun of my beliefs?



No problem. That I don't drink coffee, tea or booze doesn't make doing so a sin FOR YOU. In addition, my NOT drinking coffee or tea doesn't affect you or my child. It doesn't put anybody at risk, and unless you can find one of my beliefs that DOES put a child at the risk of actually dying, my beliefs are not pertinent to this conversation, are they?

However, the coffee/tea thing does illustrate a point here that I think you might not be getting.

Yes, I abstain from coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol. I also wear Temple garments and believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture as well as the Bible, and other things that you have stated are silly. That's not a problem; my beliefs do not have any impact upon yours or the way you live your life. They do not put your child at physical risk. If you were a nurse or doctor in a hospital, my beliefs would not force you to abandon your religious and ethical beliefs.

YOUR beliefs, however, do....and what makes you think that your beliefs trump theirs in something this serious? Now if YOU were the one refusing a life saving blood transfusion, no problem. Your beliefs, your right; that is well established for all sorts of things. The problem here is when your beliefs put someone who either doesn't share them, or who is too young to understand what's happening and unable to make such decisions for him/herself. I'm very glad that research has found alternatives to blood products that narrow these events down. I hope that eventually such discoveries will make these events a thing of the past; that there is no time at which one can say 'blood transfusion or die." However, that time hasn't come quite yet. These events are rare...but they happen.

So the question is: in such a case, do your religious beliefs....which will result in the death of a child...trump the doctor's, whose lack of action means that she is committing murder according to her beliefs, and the irreversible death of that child?

I've said that this will probably never happen to me...at least, I can't think of anything that would do that, so it's not a question I have to ask myself. However, I think you need to ask it of yourself. Seriously.

How does your believing in fighting in war and not being pacifist square with your criticism of JWs for withholding transfusions?

You could kill a fellow Mormon, because your wicked government has some issue over oil with another country

 

[Jenny Collins]

I told the people here months back, - "before your posts," - about my medical emergency medevac - and that this was the reason I hadn't posted for months. I was in surgery and then recovery. You can go to my page and read one of my replies concerning such. Check the date.

However - what does this have to do with our debate? - other then the FACT that I am alive ONLY because of blood transfusions?

The majority in science, medical fields, etc., don't agree with you. That is just the way it is.

*

I believe you got transfusions, the only reason I pointed that out that some claim things that never happened is because a lot of apostate ex JWs make up lies about their experiences with us! I have even caught them online doing it! I try to avoid them now, but in the past I engaged with some who at first I didn't know were ex members, some even denied being ex members at first but now as soon as I find out who they are, I avoid them! I only warn people not to believe everything they hear on the internet! Even with myself, no one knows for a fact that I am who I say I am or what I say about myself! I know I am telling the truth, but I would encourage healthy caution! That is all I am saying

 

[Jenny Collins]

You just..er.. did.



Jenny, I just wrote that this isn't something I will have to face, probably, at least on the medical front. Indeed, I can't think of a single belief we have that would force us to prove our faith by putting only our children at risk, as risible as you might think them.



My beliefs may well be very silly to those who don't agree with them, this is true; however nothing you have written about my beliefs, whether accurate or not, will kill anybody...much less my children. Unless, of course, someone who thinks my beliefs are silly go from exclamation points to violence. However, if that happens (as it has) the fault is on them, not me.



I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying in this sentence.

Jenny, are you against abortion? Really....are you? If you support it and the rights of the woman being overwhelmingly more important than the life of the unborn, then never mind. This is simply an extension of that attitude.

However, if you are against it, then consider: does YOUR right to live your religion supersede someone ELSE'S life, even the life of your child?

I don't think it does. However, in case I was not clear enough, here is my position on this, made as clearly as I can.

If there is a possibility that something OTHER than a blood transfusion is available and would do the job, why then....you are the parent and it is your right. However, if the ONLY thing that will save your child's life is a blood transfusion, and that blood transfusion WILL save that life, then those who are taking care of him would be committing murder if they allowed him to die because YOUR religious beliefs said no. Do your religious beliefs trump theirs? Does your belief that God doesn't want you to 'take in blood' mean more than their belief that murder is a bad thing?

Consider: in 120 days or sooner, all traces of that blood transfusion will be gone. If you allow your child to die, he'll still be dead in 120 days. I'm not certain, so I'm asking in all seriousness here; if the decision is taken out of your hands and your child is saved by a blood transfusion you did not want, will you blame/ostracize/shun the child? Is HE now tainted beyond saving? If so, I can understand why you would be upset: either way, you lose him. Could he repent of something he had no say in, and return to the fold? I'm asking these questions because I honestly do not know, but also to make a point.

Finally...

I do not blame, or criticize, those parents who hold to their beliefs even in the face of laws which will force them to stand by and watch someone else save their children's lives. Well, I don't understand it, completely, but I can't blame them. However, I also do not blame the law or the doctors who will not stand by and allow a child to die when they can save him with a transfusion.

...and as the recipient of blood products at a time when the choice was indeed 'do it or die,' I do understand that such events happen. I'm glad that science is finding alternatives. I'm all for better alternatives and their use. However, I have considerably more sympathy for the doctor who refuses to be forced to commit murder to assuage the religious beliefs of someone else, and for the child whose life is at stake. Save that life and let him repent later. it is, after all, not his fault.

But he was WILLING to do it! It was God who made the decision that he didn't have to! JWs do what God tells them, and then it is in His hands whether the child lives or not! Further, under the Mosaic Law parents threw the first stone when their children were stoned to death for being rebellious! Not perfect analogy, because the kids that may supposedly need blood are not incorrigible! But Isaac was not incorrigible and God expected him to obey!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Think about something: You as a Mormon stay away from drinking and enjoy better health because you don't abuse it like some people! In small amounts alcohol is actually healthful, but since so many abuse it, the Mormons are further ahead because they don't touch it at all! They also don't smoke, and most don't have sex outside of marriage, thus avoiding STDs! The Mormon way of life is pretty healthy! The same can be said of JWs!

In my own case I gave up drinking, smoking, pot, other drugs, fornication a very long time ago! If I had kept them up, I would be unhealthy! If I had had children and did those things, I would be exposing them to unhealthy second hand smoke, influencing them to take up the habits that I had, putting their health at risk if I drove drunk or was neglectful due to my lifestyle! Possibly even though I was not being conscious of my own as well of my child's life, I may hate JWs because on very rare occasions, one of their children may die being of the blood issue!

Now you as a Mormon can say: "Yeah, but I don't do those harmful things!" Okay, but no doubt some of the others on here who are debating me do or have done these things! They may not admit that here, but they may be investing a lot of energy into telling us we are so bad, that they could be using to kick the booze habit!

If you would look at this from a broad perspective, the JW way of life is healthier than the lifestyle of the general public and healthier for our kids! Yet the general public is getting all bent out of shape over this one thing

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes, but you will notice that he did not, after all, have to do that.



Jenny, I'm a Mormon. That means that I can in all honesty and with all respect for the bible as scripture, say 'the winners write the history."



Yes. THEY were willing to die for their beliefs. Please note that they didn't throw OTHER youths into the fire, but stepped in themselves. You refuse transfusions for yourself; that is absolutely your right.



Yes....and if the doctor believes that God requires him to save the life of a child? Do your beliefs (which would, in the very rare occasions we are speaking about here, kill him) trump his that he should not murder? Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifist, yes? They will not fight or join the military in any capacity? How does that square with your willingness to allow someone else to die because you impose your beliefs upon him?

BTW, I honor true pacifists and have absolutely no problems with your stance on this. If you had ever read the Book of Mormon you would know why that is, but again, that's an entirely different conversation.



good, because we don't believe that. Jenny....I thought you weren't going to make fun of my beliefs?



No problem. That I don't drink coffee, tea or booze doesn't make doing so a sin FOR YOU. In addition, my NOT drinking coffee or tea doesn't affect you or my child. It doesn't put anybody at risk, and unless you can find one of my beliefs that DOES put a child at the risk of actually dying, my beliefs are not pertinent to this conversation, are they?

However, the coffee/tea thing does illustrate a point here that I think you might not be getting.

Yes, I abstain from coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol. I also wear Temple garments and believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture as well as the Bible, and other things that you have stated are silly. That's not a problem; my beliefs do not have any impact upon yours or the way you live your life. They do not put your child at physical risk. If you were a nurse or doctor in a hospital, my beliefs would not force you to abandon your religious and ethical beliefs.

YOUR beliefs, however, do....and what makes you think that your beliefs trump theirs in something this serious? Now if YOU were the one refusing a life saving blood transfusion, no problem. Your beliefs, your right; that is well established for all sorts of things. The problem here is when your beliefs put someone who either doesn't share them, or who is too young to understand what's happening and unable to make such decisions for him/herself. I'm very glad that research has found alternatives to blood products that narrow these events down. I hope that eventually such discoveries will make these events a thing of the past; that there is no time at which one can say 'blood transfusion or die." However, that time hasn't come quite yet. These events are rare...but they happen.

So the question is: in such a case, do your religious beliefs....which will result in the death of a child...trump the doctor's, whose lack of action means that she is committing murder according to her beliefs, and the irreversible death of that child?

I've said that this will probably never happen to me...at least, I can't think of anything that would do that, so it's not a question I have to ask myself. However, I think you need to ask it of yourself. Seriously.

"My beliefs don't have any effect on your, or your child's health" you say! Neither do my beliefs have any effect on "your or your child's way of life" My stand on transfusions, will never put YOUR child at risk!

Do you remember that there were children that died in the Bible, and they were resurrected by Elisha (or Elijah?) and Jesus? If on the very rare occasion, a child would die from not getting a transfusion, do you think that they will not come back to life someday? Let's face it, children do die in this world, the two prostitutes had babies, one died, the other stole her baby claiming it was hers and Solomon tested them to find out who was being truthful! Remember that? God let's children die, and he also can resurrect them! Even the ones that were resurrected in Christ's day, are now dead! It is inevitable for everyone! But they will get resurrected!

Remember Job? All of his kids were allowed by God to die, Satan was the cause though! They will get a resurrection though! God gave life, and eventually we all die, sometimes young, sometimes old! The REAL life is in the future!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Yes, but you will notice that he did not, after all, have to do that.



Jenny, I'm a Mormon. That means that I can in all honesty and with all respect for the bible as scripture, say 'the winners write the history."



Yes. THEY were willing to die for their beliefs. Please note that they didn't throw OTHER youths into the fire, but stepped in themselves. You refuse transfusions for yourself; that is absolutely your right.



Yes....and if the doctor believes that God requires him to save the life of a child? Do your beliefs (which would, in the very rare occasions we are speaking about here, kill him) trump his that he should not murder? Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifist, yes? They will not fight or join the military in any capacity? How does that square with your willingness to allow someone else to die because you impose your beliefs upon him?

BTW, I honor true pacifists and have absolutely no problems with your stance on this. If you had ever read the Book of Mormon you would know why that is, but again, that's an entirely different conversation.



good, because we don't believe that. Jenny....I thought you weren't going to make fun of my beliefs?



No problem. That I don't drink coffee, tea or booze doesn't make doing so a sin FOR YOU. In addition, my NOT drinking coffee or tea doesn't affect you or my child. It doesn't put anybody at risk, and unless you can find one of my beliefs that DOES put a child at the risk of actually dying, my beliefs are not pertinent to this conversation, are they?

However, the coffee/tea thing does illustrate a point here that I think you might not be getting.

Yes, I abstain from coffee, tea, tobacco and alcohol. I also wear Temple garments and believe that the Book of Mormon is scripture as well as the Bible, and other things that you have stated are silly. That's not a problem; my beliefs do not have any impact upon yours or the way you live your life. They do not put your child at physical risk. If you were a nurse or doctor in a hospital, my beliefs would not force you to abandon your religious and ethical beliefs.

YOUR beliefs, however, do....and what makes you think that your beliefs trump theirs in something this serious? Now if YOU were the one refusing a life saving blood transfusion, no problem. Your beliefs, your right; that is well established for all sorts of things. The problem here is when your beliefs put someone who either doesn't share them, or who is too young to understand what's happening and unable to make such decisions for him/herself. I'm very glad that research has found alternatives to blood products that narrow these events down. I hope that eventually such discoveries will make these events a thing of the past; that there is no time at which one can say 'blood transfusion or die." However, that time hasn't come quite yet. These events are rare...but they happen.

So the question is: in such a case, do your religious beliefs....which will result in the death of a child...trump the doctor's, whose lack of action means that she is committing murder according to her beliefs, and the irreversible death of that child?

I've said that this will probably never happen to me...at least, I can't think of anything that would do that, so it's not a question I have to ask myself. However, I think you need to ask it of yourself. Seriously.

You are a believer so I appeal to you on those grounds! However if an atheist reads this, he scoffs at all of us! He believes we are bound by our superstitious chains of religion!

Well then I point out to atheists, that since they don't follow the direction of God, they follow their own direction! How is that working for them? So they become their own Gods, and their conscience lets them have abortions as is often the case! Then they try to explain away why that is okay, and are doing the same as the religious giving their reasons!

 

[metis]

The Jewish Laws do not forbid us from abstaining from blood! In Genesis before the Law, the sanctity of blood was made known, and because of this it was incorporated into the Law code!

But it was not banned prior to the giving of the Jewish law to Moses, and there certainly is no mention of transfusions. So, what you are doing is "picking & choosing".

The whole law code disappeared! Kaput! But that doesn't mean that Christians can steal!

But "God's Law" is the Mosaiic Law, according to Torah, so you simply cannot say you are observing "God's Law" when you aren't.

OTOH, any organization has the right to define and teach its own rules ("laws", if you'd like), and Christians in general and J.W.'s in particular certainly have that right.

 

[psychoslice]

The apostles asked Jesus why he spoke in parables and riddles to the pharisees and crowds, and he explained that it wasn't granted to them to understand! They have "ears, but cannot hear" and "eyes but cannot see" People with the right heart and motives, dig deep and find the meaning

I agree, but this isn't a parable, its a strait out commandment, if there is really a god and he wants us to do what he wants then he certainly hasn't done a good job at all, you and I could have done a lot better.

 

[oldbadger]

(John 6:44)

Deeje, you quoted John 6:44. That quote taken to verse 48 totally annuls any need for any JW to refuse blood if they would prefer to be transfused. The Watchtower might disown them but this scripture says that God will NOT refuse them. But that would separate the Watchtower from the pathway to God.

Well 44-48 declares that the ONLY requirement for attainment to God's Heavenly Kingdom is FAITH..... not any actions at all. This piece refutes the need to actually do ANYTHING! It clearly states .... 'He that believeth on me hath everlasting life'.

...... which means that if any JW 'BELIEVES', then that JW can allow blood to be administered to a loved one or self, because all that is required is BELIEF.
Read it for yourself
{6:44} No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. {6:45} It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. {6:46} Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. {6:47} Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. {6:48} I am that bread of life.
These are the Divine words of God, as passed down in writing through his Ordained Apostle. It's not whether I believe this writing, it's whether you do.

Peace
OB

 

[Jenny Collins]

But it was not banned prior to the giving of the Jewish law to Moses, and there certainly is no mention of transfusions. So, what you are doing is "picking & choosing".

But "God's Law" is the Mosaiic Law, according to Torah, so you simply cannot say you are observing "God's Law" when you aren't.

OTOH, any organization has the right to define and teach its own rules ("laws", if you'd like), and Christians in general and J.W.'s in particular certainly have that right.

Not at all what you said! In Genesis blood was proclaimed to be sacred! Even before the law was insituted, they had an appreciation for what was right and wrong!

Take Joseph for instance, in Genesis he was sold into slavery and worked for Potiphar! Potiphar's wife tried to get him to have sex with her, and he said: "How could I commit wrong against my master" and sleep with you! Those aren't the precise words said but something like that! But it wasn't until the time of Moses that the Mosaic Law was put together and adultery was included in the compiling of what was wrong! There were wrongs already recognized, but when the law was instituted they were incorporated into it! Then when the law was lifted, those same things were valid and restated for Christians, including abstaining from blood, fornication, adultery and so on

 

[Jenny Collins]

I agree, but this isn't a parable, its a strait out commandment, if there is really a god and he wants us to do what he wants then he certainly hasn't done a good job at all, you and I could have done a lot better.

I know it is a straight out command! The word can accurately be translated "abstain" In that time there were no transfusions, but now there are! If a doctor said "Don't drink alcohol, would you inject it in your veins"?

 

[Milton Platt]

You compare blood transfusions to leaving one's home! Blood transfusions are much more riskier than leaving one's home! I am surprised you didn't know that! As I said, we have to leave our homes, what choice do we have? We could stay in our homes and then maybe a meteor would fall from the sky and kill us! Life is risks, but we don't take unnecessary risks like transfusions, which are mostly unneeded! We don't "beat our chests" a very weird choice of words, and we our reasons for refusing them are religious but no dogma involved! Look that word up! We are obedient to the Bible and that also works out for us, because we avoid risks! Same could be said for avoiding fornication! We avoid that to be obedient to God, and by doing so we also avoid risk of disease, pregnancy, etc

The fact of the matter is that America and many other countries, give citizens religious freedom! Gone are the days where a court could decide what you do with your own body, and gone are the days where people can let their conscience be the deciding factor for how you live your live? You may have your own beliefs, and it wouldn't be my place to try to run your life!

So, you are not basing your refusal of blood products on religious grounds, then? Because that would be dogma......