I worry about the children of religious parents.

[oldbadger]

That prejudice is dangerous? Sure. That opposing indoctrinating children is prejudiced? That's obviously a rather large stretch, and this sort of smells like ad hominem anyways; call the view "prejudiced" (without any substantiation I might add) so that you can dismiss it without having to say what exactly is wrong or incorrect about it.

Question:-
If you ruled the World..... total control..... OK?

Would you make any rulings about religious households and their children?

If so, what?

 

[JayJayDee]

I just wanted to comment on this link Penguin.

Without fanfare, Jehovah’s Witnesses quietly soften position on blood transfusions | National Post

I think the portion quoted below (in blue) is important.

JW's know that courts side with the doctors. We know that we are powerless in these situations. All we really want is our position respected. To read something like the following gives us that respect and takes a lot of the stress out of what is an extremely stressful situation.

"Toronto’s Sick Kids now will go to “all lengths” to find alternatives to transfusing blood when Jehovah’s Witnesses voice their opposition, said Rebecca Bruni, a bioethicist at the hospital. It also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion."

There is no "softening" of our stand on blood because it is non negotiable, but when medical personnel guarantee that they will do everything they can to avoid the use of blood when treating our children, then that is all we can ask under the circumstances.

In most cases blood is not needed and that is the end of the story. We have no control beyond that, so it leaves us with nowhere else to go. It then becomes something we hand over to God. He knows we do not give permission willingly for this to take place. The 'superior authorities' have the final say. (Rom 13:1, 2) It is out of our hands.

I've done plenty of research. Blood transfusions save lives.

If you've never seen lives saved without it, how would you know?

 

[Sees]

I just wanted to comment on this link Penguin.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/1...uietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions/

I think the portion quoted below (in blue) is important.

JW's know that courts side with the doctors. We know that we are powerless in these situations. All we really want is our position respected. To read something like the following gives us that respect and takes a lot of the stress out of what is an extremely stressful situation.

"Toronto’s Sick Kids now will go to “all lengths” to find alternatives to transfusing blood when Jehovah’s Witnesses voice their opposition, said Rebecca Bruni, a bioethicist at the hospital. It also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion."

There is no "softening" of our stand on blood because it is non negotiable, but when medical personnel guarantee that they will do everything they can to avoid the use of blood when treating our children, then that is all we can ask under the circumstances.

In most cases blood is not needed and that is the end of the story. We have no control beyond that, so it leaves us with nowhere else to go. It then becomes something we hand over to God. He knows we do not give permission willingly for this to take place. The 'superior authorities' have the final say. (Rom 13:1, 2) It is out of our hands.

If you've never seen lives saved without it, how would you know?

Are you aware of the type of injuries common in combat? If so, do you think blood is a bit more necessary for those patients? I know this is an odd situation since JWs are pacifistic and don't do combat. Same time, these injuries can and do happen to civilians.

My wife is a veteran like me, she was a Navy Corpsman. She thinks the mortality rate would be much, much higher without blood transfusions with extremely traumatic injuries.

Like you I'm not a fan of hospitals and pharmaceutical products but if it's something extreme like this the person is going to the hospital to be taken care

 

[JayJayDee]

Are you aware of the type of injuries common in combat? If so, do you think blood is a bit more necessary for those patients? I know this is an odd situation since JWs are pacifistic and don't do combat. Same time, these injuries can and do happen to civilians.

My wife is a veteran like me, she was a Navy Corpsman. She thinks the mortality rate would be much, much higher without blood transfusions with extremely traumatic injuries.

Like you I'm not a fan of hospitals and pharmaceutical products but if it's something extreme like this the person is going to the hospital to be taken care

I have given a personal account of a friend's daughter in a car accident. It was an emergency and she massive internal bleeding. Doctors respected her wishes not to use blood. She had surgery to remove her ruptured spleen and recovered well.
Another personal friend had an ectopic pregnancy which resulted in massive hemorrhage. Doctors told he she would die without blood. but she didn't. She was as white as the sheet on the bed but she recovered without blood. The body's capacity to make up red cells is amazing, especially with the aid of EPO.

I believe that during the Second World War when blood was in short supply, doctors infused their patients with ordinary sea water to keep blood volume levels up and they saved lives.

Trauma is a bit different to general bloodless surgery because of the time factor but with the techniques they have now, cell salvage and saline volume expanders etc, it can be done, but the skill of the doctor is challenged, no doubt about that. They can't perform miracles and even when blood is used, there is no guarantee of recovery. All we ask is that they do their best.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't believe you...... that you are sorry.


Yep....... folks 'bang on' about that all the time. For me it is a 'tell', or rather, a 'suggest'.... it suggests to me that this is all that they know about JWs.


.......... but..... you did..... ??


I didn't write that it was offensive, I tried to point out that we need to worry about conditions that really are damaging for children, and religion is low on my list, if mot yours.

If you think that a list of the top 10 reasons for child deaths (5-9 yrs) in the US is 'crap', that tells me all that I need to know.

Where did I mention anything about children? Where in my post did I talk about anything damaging to children?

I'm curious in the one post that I made in this thread where did I mention children? The question I posted was about the blood comment that Jay made. So please I want you to quote where I mention children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just wanted to comment on this link Penguin.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/1...uietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions/

I think the portion quoted below (in blue) is important.

JW's know that courts side with the doctors. We know that we are powerless in these situations. All we really want is our position respected. To read something like the following gives us that respect and takes a lot of the stress out of what is an extremely stressful situation.

"Toronto’s Sick Kids now will go to “all lengths” to find alternatives to transfusing blood when Jehovah’s Witnesses voice their opposition, said Rebecca Bruni, a bioethicist at the hospital. It also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion."

There is no "softening" of our stand on blood because it is non negotiable, but when medical personnel guarantee that they will do everything they can to avoid the use of blood when treating our children, then that is all we can ask under the circumstances.

In most cases blood is not needed and that is the end of the story. We have no control beyond that, so it leaves us with nowhere else to go. It then becomes something we hand over to God. He knows we do not give permission willingly for this to take place. The 'superior authorities' have the final say. (Rom 13:1, 2) It is out of our hands.

From what you're saying here, it sounds like your position is that you'll allow blood transfusions when necessary, but make a show of offense when you do. If so, it's not an ideal situation (since your lip-service to the anti-transfusion position can still lead other JWs or your kids to actually follow through), but at least the kid survives.

If you've never seen lives saved without it, how would you know?

Indeed - how on Earth could we ever know that oxygen is carried by haemoglobin and not saline? :sarcastic

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I believe many Atheists are worried about how these children are going to grow up and vote more than they are for their well being.

Can't speak to the many, but for myself there is an element of truth in that. Trust me, I am legitimately concerned for parents raised by fundamentalists of whatever flavour, be they religious or otherwise. But living in a democracy, I prefer a larger number of people to exist who favour the same basic principles I do.

Happily for the religious amongst you, I could give a rats whether you believe in God(s) or not. I mean, I'm curious, but it's not a tenet of how I want my country structured. Quite the opposite.

Votes determine how the country moves. So raise your kids to be tolerant of others, hardworking, honest and to think for themselves, and there's more chance that whatever way they vote in the future, it will at least be a direction I can respect.

On the other hand, raise them to be unthinking robots overly sure in the TRUTH, and I'm a little less happy with the democratic principle of one person = one vote.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Can't speak to the many, but for myself there is an element of truth in that. Trust me, I am legitimately concerned for parents raised by fundamentalists of whatever flavour, be they religious or otherwise. But living in a democracy, I prefer a larger number of people to exist who favour the same basic principles I do.

Happily for the religious amongst you, I could give a rats whether you believe in God(s) or not. I mean, I'm curious, but it's not a tenet of how I want my country structured. Quite the opposite.

Votes determine how the country moves. So raise your kids to be tolerant of others, hardworking, honest and to think for themselves, and there's more chance that whatever way they vote in the future, it will at least be a direction I can respect.

On the other hand, raise them to be unthinking robots overly sure in the TRUTH, and I'm a little less happy with the democratic principle of one person = one vote.

Thank you for the well thought out post. I have to agree with what you say, every word of it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Question:-
If you ruled the World..... total control..... OK?

Would you make any rulings about religious households and their children?

If so, what?

Probably not, as there are plenty of things that I wouldn't necessarily outlaw that I nevertheless would not do myself- but for that very reason, this question isn't especially relevant to whether there isn't a legitimate basis for concern for children of religious households. Also, I'm not finding your follow-up post where you explain how any of this is "prejudiced"- care to help me out?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Can't speak to the many, but for myself there is an element of truth in that.

Well sure- would anyone be keen on the prospect of views they oppose gaining followers or voters, in itself? Probably not. But is this concern in any way related to the issue expressed in the OP? Not for me, and it doesn't appear to be so for the OP or other posters either. Which is, of course, why bringing it up was a desperate and fallacious attempt to discount a view against which was unable to mount any sort of substantive rebuttal. Once again, it was simply ad hominem- accuse your opponent of malicious or untoward motives in order to excuse yourself from having to say what is actually mistaken about their claims.

 

[beenie]

**Staff Advisory**

This thread has been closed for Staff review​