I worry about the children of religious parents.

[Enai de a lukal]

No your form of debating is to give someone a narrow leading list of options to respond with. Then you demean them for refusing to answer.

Yeah, that never happened, but it would nevertheless be preferable to ignoring what everyone says and trying to invent malicious motives for them, as if that somehow explains away their view.

You have yet to answer my question about what qualifies you to have superior parenting skills?

I did answer it, by pointing out that the question is a red herring and an attempt to change the subject from the pertinent point.

Which boils down to my point, this is nothing but opinion and your opinion stinks because you are atempting to control how other's raise their children.

That may make it "stink" in the sense that you have a negative emotional reaction to it, but that doesn't make my opinion wrong or inaccurate.

Bottom line, they are not your children and you need to butt out unless you have some actual superior credentials on parenting.

No, that is a complete non-sequitur. One can make an accurate point regarding the ethics of, say, certain medical procedures, without being themselves a doctor. You're essentially just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall, hoping some will stick. Perhaps you should try to provide an on-topic, non-fallacious response to... well, anything I've said...

Do you really expect religious people to change how they are raising their children because some Atheist on the internet says so?

Do you really believe people participate in discussions or forums with the sole purpose of changing how other people live their lives? Like, seriously?

What I don't understand is why anyone would give a tinkers damn what you think on the matter. :ignore:

Why don't you ask them then? Or, maybe tell us yourself; here you are responding, yet again (despite proclaiming both your total lack of interest, as well as announcing your departure from the thread), so obviously you care enough to bother typing up your little temper tantrums...

 

[Reverend Rick]

Yeah, that never happened, but it would nevertheless be preferable to ignoring what everyone says and trying to invent malicious motives for them, as if that somehow explains away their view.

Never happened really? You did not repeatedly ask for A, B, or C ???

I did answer it, by pointing out that the question is a red herring and an attempt to change the subject from the pertinent point.

No, you dodged the question twice now. Last chance, have you even raised any children?

That may make it "stink" in the sense that you have a negative emotional reaction to it, but that doesn't make my opinion wrong or inaccurate.

It makes it your opinion with no reason to be any better than anyone else's opinion.

No, that is a complete non-sequitur. One can make an accurate point regarding the ethics of, say, certain medical procedures, without being themselves a doctor. You're essentially just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall, hoping some will stick. Perhaps you should try to provide an on-topic, non-fallacious response to... well, anything I've said...

So you are saying you have no parenting experience?

Do you really believe people participate in discussions or forums with the sole purpose of changing how other people live their lives? Like, seriously?

Yes I do.

Why don't you ask them then? Or, maybe tell us yourself; here you are responding, yet again (despite proclaiming both your total lack of interest, as well as announcing your departure from the thread), so obviously you care enough to bother typing up your little temper tantrums...

Too funny....Is that the best you got?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Never happened really? You did not repeatedly ask for A, B, or C ???

My options were exhaustive (not "narrow"), and I didn't demean anyone. Nice try, though.

No, you dodged the question twice now.

Your question is a deliberate red herring. Persisting only shows you are not willing to engage the actual topic of this thread and want to muddy the water.

So... Anything pertinent? Any cogent rebuttals? Anything resembling an argument? Or just emotional diarrhea?

It makes it your opinion with no reason to be any better than anyone else's opinion.

But for this- "reasons" and "arguments". Ever heard of them?

Yes I do.

Then you are clearly out of touch with people's motivations. On the other hand, given the conspiracy theories you've been spewing, I guess this comes as no surprise.

Too funny....Is that the best you got?

Why would I waste my best on you? In any case, notice how you ignore my point that your own (continued) participation on this thread belies your self-proclaimed lack of interest.

 

[suzy smith]

You saw that there was no hell?

No, I saw that there was no evidence for religion. Or the tooth fairy, or big foot, or little green men from mars or…….well you get the picture.

 

[suzy smith]

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.

Are you serious? Please tell me you are not serious

 

[JayJayDee]

@JayJayDee : ‘Just so we don't perpetuate another myth....Please be assured that JW's refusal to have blood transfusions is entirely Biblical.’

No, its entirely biblical depending on how you interpret the relevant scriptures!
For example Acts 15:19-21, 28 It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions.

Well I guess that is a matter of interpretation. When someone is unable to take food by mouth, they are fed intravenously are they not?

If you are consuming blood to sustain your life....the means of consumption becomes irrelevant.

The NT is specific about the sanctity of blood in continuing to command that Christians "abstain from blood". (Acts 15:20, 29) How does one "abstain" by merely taking blood into the body by a different means?

God's word is unambiguous regarding the sanctity of blood, and medical evidence is making it clear that blood is not good medicine....turns out, it never was.

Those who have bothered to Google the dangers of blood transfusions and also bloodless surgery, will see that the medical profession has gravitated away from using blood at all. This emotive argument does not have a leg to stand on.

Upholding God's command has been vindicated.

There is also work in progress on administering a liquid form of oxygen directly into the bloodstream which would eliminate the use of blood altogether. EPO allows the red cells to be replenished very rapidly.

Doctors know the dangers of blood transfusion by their own experience, so any doctor who has not been left in the dark ages will not touch it.

 

[oldbadger]

THE THREAD TITLE:-
I worry about the children of religious parents.

OK...... this deep into the debate, I have to accept that you are always going to worry about the children of religious parents. There is nothing that I can do about this prejudice........ complete prejudgment.

I want to share some of the situations (about minors) that I have concern about:-
Parent alcoholics.........
Parent substance abuse......
Parental bullying.......
Parents with (illegal) dangerous dogs....
Parents who leave minors unsupervised......
Parents who fight each other physically.....
Parents who do not send their children to school.....
.....and on....

Now I don't think that my concerns are prejudiced...... make challenges if you wish. But I think that your worry as stated in the OP is prejudiced. Prejudice is a very dangerous mindset whenever and wherever it surfaces.

Do you not agree?

 

[JayJayDee]

Every 2-3 seconds in the United States someone needs life-saving blood products. A single blood donation has the potential to save up to three lives, as blood can be divided into its separate components and used to treat a variety of ailments.

The real tragedy is that we often have a shortage of blood supply in the United States to respond to emergency and illness.

It takes a willing donor, whether they are paid or not, to provide this valuable service.

You're entitled to your opinions and I certainly wouldn't question your parenting choices.

But, I know for fact that blood transfusions and treatments that include blood products are REQUIRED "medicine" for some.

Dawny, we are on the other side of this argument and I can assure you that all the Witnesses I know personally (and there are many of them so this is my own experience, not second hand or anecdotal stories from third parties) who have been told point blank by medical personnel that they WOULD die without blood...not one of them did.

Blood is not absolutely necessary to preserve life, even in an emergency. All that is needed is saline to keep the blood volume levels maintained so that veins do not collapse, and good medical management. EPO administered when bleeding has been stopped will enhance red cell production; cell salvage used to conserve blood that is already in the body, and keeping the level of volume up in the supply will save a life without breaking the laws of God. This has been proven among my brotherhood time and again.

Children removed from their parents's custody in order to force a blood transfusion are victims of ignorance on the part of the legal system. The courts count on the word of a financially motivated body to promote a procedure that has proven to be detrimental rather than life saving. Ignorance benefits no one.

I will give you one very personal example. A close friend of mine had a daughter who was involved in a serious car accident in our small regional town. Her spleen was ruptured and she almost bled out as a result. She and her family were pressured to have blood, but as Witnesses, they were resolute, as was their teenage daughter. Their wishes were honored reluctantly, but to their amazement, she survived and returned to health relatively quickly. After surgery to remove her damaged spleen, her blood levels returned to normal in a short space of time.

The only downside was that she had lost most of her antibodies from previous illnesses and had to be careful about infections that she was previously immune to. A small price to pay, seeing as how transfusions can leave all manner of problems from the foreign blood of one unknown person to another for the rest of their life.

She is a wife and mother today, and she has never looked back.

When we have to sign admission forms for hospital treatment here in Australia, they ask if you have EVER had a blood transfusion. There is a good reason for that.

Blood is a huge money spinner. It is a multi million dollar a year business. Don't be misled by the emotive advertising....it is meant to prop up profits, not save lives. They know the risks, but continue to promote it. That is unconscionable IMO.

 

[JayJayDee]

OK...... this deep into the debate, I have to accept that you are always going to worry about the children of religious parents. There is nothing that I can do about this prejudice........ complete prejudgment.

I want to share some of the situations (about minors) that I have concern about:-
Parent alcoholics.........
Parent substance abuse......
Parental bullying.......
Parents with (illegal) dangerous dogs....
Parents who leave minors unsupervised......
Parents who fight each other physically.....
Parents who do not send their children to school.....
.....and on....

Now I don't think that my concerns are prejudiced...... make challenges if you wish. But I think that your worry as stated in the OP is prejudiced. Prejudice is a very dangerous mindset whenever and wherever it surfaces.

Do you not agree?

Well said OB :clap. :clap this makes religious education pale into insignificance.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So if blood isn't so essential to life, why is there still a taboo for transfusions in the JW's?

 

[oldbadger]

So if blood isn't so essential to life, why is there still a taboo for transfusions in the JW's?

.......... because that is their belief....
You know, folks just bang on and bang on about blood transfusion refusal amongst the Jehovah's Witnesses. You're doing it now. Is that all you've got?

That is just so weak....... Let me show you...
Here are the Child (top 10) Death Stats for the USA in 2010 age groups 5-9yrs. They follow, below. Now how many of those deaths were caused by JW's refusing to allow their kids to have blood transfusions? I wonder how many 5-9 yr olds died because, for instance, their parents didn't ensure that they wore seat belts of the correct type?

Do you think that any of the child homicides (111) were caused by JWs?

Do you honestly mean to suggest that you lay in bed before sleep, looking at your ceiling and worrying about JW children? Might this whole thread just be another snowball thrown by atheism at religion?

Ten Leading Causes of Death and Injury - PDFs|Injury Center|CDC
10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, United States – 2010 Group Ages 5-9 years
Unintentional Injury 758
Malignant Neoplasms 439
Congenital Anomalies 163
Homicide 111
Heart Disease 68
Chronic Low Respiratory Disease 60
Cerebro- vascular 47
Benign Neoplasms 37
Influenza & Pneumonia 37
Septicemia 32
Data Source: National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dawny, we are on the other side of this argument and I can assure you that all the Witnesses I know personally (and there are many of them so this is my own experience, not second hand or anecdotal stories from third parties) who have been told point blank by medical personnel that they WOULD die without blood...not one of them did.

Blood is not absolutely necessary to preserve life, even in an emergency. All that is needed is saline to keep the blood volume levels maintained so that veins do not collapse, and good medical management. EPO administered when bleeding has been stopped will enhance red cell production; cell salvage used to conserve blood that is already in the body, and keeping the level of volume up in the supply will save a life without breaking the laws of God. This has been proven among my brotherhood time and again.

Children removed from their parents's custody in order to force a blood transfusion are victims of ignorance on the part of the legal system. The courts count on the word of a financially motivated body to promote a procedure that has proven to be detrimental rather than life saving. Ignorance benefits no one.

I will give you one very personal example. A close friend of mine had a daughter who was involved in a serious car accident in our small regional town. Her spleen was ruptured and she almost bled out as a result. She and her family were pressured to have blood, but as Witnesses, they were resolute, as was their teenage daughter. Their wishes were honored reluctantly, but to their amazement, she survived and returned to health relatively quickly. After surgery to remove her damaged spleen, her blood levels returned to normal in a short space of time.

The only downside was that she had lost most of her antibodies from previous illnesses and had to be careful about infections that she was previously immune to. A small price to pay, seeing as how transfusions can leave all manner of problems from the foreign blood of one unknown person to another for the rest of their life.

She is a wife and mother today, and she has never looked back.

When we have to sign admission forms for hospital treatment here in Australia, they ask if you have EVER had a blood transfusion. There is a good reason for that.

Blood is a huge money spinner. It is a multi million dollar a year business. Don't be misled by the emotive advertising....it is meant to prop up profits, not save lives. They know the risks, but continue to promote it. That is unconscionable IMO.

You do realize that many Jehovah's Witnesses do choose life-saving transfusions in secret and then just lie about it afterward, right? It could very well be that some of the people you know who you consider to be success stories of bloodless surgery weren't so bloodless at all.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

.......... because that is their belief....
You know, folks just bang on and bang on about blood transfusion refusal amongst the Jehovah's Witnesses. You're doing it now. Is that all you've got?

That is just so weak....... Let me show you...
Here are the Child (top 10) Death Stats for the USA in 2010 age groups 5-9yrs. They follow, below. Now how many of those deaths were caused by JW's refusing to allow their kids to have blood transfusions? I wonder how many 5-9 yr olds died because, for instance, their parents didn't ensure that they wore seat belts of the correct type?

Do you think that any of the child homicides (111) were caused by JWs?

Do you honestly mean to suggest that you lay in bed before sleep, looking at your ceiling and worrying about JW children? Might this whole thread just be another snowball thrown by atheism at religion?

Ten Leading Causes of Death and Injury - PDFs|Injury Center|CDC
10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, United States – 2010 Group Ages 5-9 years
Unintentional Injury 758
Malignant Neoplasms 439
Congenital Anomalies 163
Homicide 111
Heart Disease 68
Chronic Low Respiratory Disease 60
Cerebro- vascular 47
Benign Neoplasms 37
Influenza & Pneumonia 37
Septicemia 32
Data Source: National Vital Statistics System, National Center for Health Statistics, CDC.

I'm sorry, what?

Did I bang on and on about something? I posted once, I asked a question because I felt it odd to say that "blood is not essential for life" and then turn around and say you wont accept a blood transfusion because blood is important to life. Given how much is known about blood today I wanted to know what was the reason.

Trust me if I want to make a tirade about JW's I very much can, I don't because guess what I know it is there belief. So next time you want to come at me with a bunch of nonessential crap in your attempt to protect them against some non-existent slight that has been made, make sure I have actually said something that was offensive. Heck I'm not even an atheist, I know plenty of Christians who disagree with the JW's on their beliefs about blood transfusions. SO please go sit down somewhere...smh

 

[JayJayDee]

You do realize that many Jehovah's Witnesses do choose life-saving transfusions in secret and then just lie about it afterward, right? It could very well be that some of the people you know who you consider to be success stories of bloodless surgery weren't so bloodless at all.

LOL. NO I don't believe that many JW's accept blood without telling anyone. And that kind of response leaves God out of the picture altogether....this is something no real Witness of Jehovah would do. I can't speak for the weak fringe dwellers who like to wear labels. (all churches have them)

Any census will tell you that more people claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses than we count as members of our congregations. Witnesses in name only are not real Witnesses.

We will obey Jehovah first in this matter no matter what. We know what foreign blood from an unknown donor does to the body because we have researched the matter thoroughly. It actually slows down recovery. Do some research.

We have a Hospital Liaison Committee who advise doctors on the latest bloodless techniques. They actually consult us and respect our research.

If the only thing people fear is other people, or death, then they have no fear of Jehovah or faith in the God they purport to worship. This life is not the important one. If you break God's law to save your life, you will miss out on the more important one to come. (Matt 10:39)

We all understand that nothing is done "in secret" where God is concerned, don't we?? (Heb 4:13)

 

[dawny0826]

Dawny, we are on the other side of this argument and I can assure you that all the Witnesses I know personally (and there are many of them so this is my own experience, not second hand or anecdotal stories from third parties) who have been told point blank by medical personnel that they WOULD die without blood...not one of them did.

Blood is not absolutely necessary to preserve life, even in an emergency. All that is needed is saline to keep the blood volume levels maintained so that veins do not collapse, and good medical management. EPO administered when bleeding has been stopped will enhance red cell production; cell salvage used to conserve blood that is already in the body, and keeping the level of volume up in the supply will save a life without breaking the laws of God. This has been proven among my brotherhood time and again.

Children removed from their parents's custody in order to force a blood transfusion are victims of ignorance on the part of the legal system. The courts count on the word of a financially motivated body to promote a procedure that has proven to be detrimental rather than life saving. Ignorance benefits no one.

I will give you one very personal example. A close friend of mine had a daughter who was involved in a serious car accident in our small regional town. Her spleen was ruptured and she almost bled out as a result. She and her family were pressured to have blood, but as Witnesses, they were resolute, as was their teenage daughter. Their wishes were honored reluctantly, but to their amazement, she survived and returned to health relatively quickly. After surgery to remove her damaged spleen, her blood levels returned to normal in a short space of time.

The only downside was that she had lost most of her antibodies from previous illnesses and had to be careful about infections that she was previously immune to. A small price to pay, seeing as how transfusions can leave all manner of problems from the foreign blood of one unknown person to another for the rest of their life.

She is a wife and mother today, and she has never looked back.

When we have to sign admission forms for hospital treatment here in Australia, they ask if you have EVER had a blood transfusion. There is a good reason for that.

Blood is a huge money spinner. It is a multi million dollar a year business. Don't be misled by the emotive advertising....it is meant to prop up profits, not save lives. They know the risks, but continue to promote it. That is unconscionable IMO.

Blood products are screened thoroughly in the US and those entities who do not comply with stringent standards are penalized horribly.

Blood products save lives. I respect the right of any individual to forego blood products in the pursuit of alternative therapy if it's what they feel is best, but, I will not discount the benefits of blood donation.

I have personal accounts to share as well, where people lived because blood products were available.

If you bleed out, you will most assuredly die, unless you receive some sort of emergency treatment. It's your choice as to whether or not you accept blood products and support the donation of blood products, but, you're not in the position to undermine the positive experiences of others anymore than I would be to undermine that which you've shared.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

LOL. NO I don't believe that many JW's accept blood without telling anyone.

People in a better position than you to know agree that it does happen:

All the ethicists stress, as well, that some Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with the blood ban, but are anxious that their green light to transfusion be kept confidential.

“Some families are really more concerned about other Jehovah’s Witnesses finding out they consented to the blood transfusion,” said Ms. Seller.

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

And that kind of response leaves God out of the picture altogether....this is something no real Witness of Jehovah would do. I can't speak for the weak fringe dwellers who like to wear labels. (all churches have them)

Any census will tell you that more people claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses than we count as members of our congregations. Witnesses in name only are not real Witnesses.

We will obey Jehovah first in this matter no matter what. We know what foreign blood from an unknown donor does to the body because we have researched the matter thoroughly. It actually slows down recovery. Do some research.

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

We have a Hospital Liaison Committee who advise doctors on the latest bloodless techniques. They actually consult us and respect our research.

If the only thing people fear is other people, or death, then they have no fear of Jehovah or faith in the God they purport to worship. This life is not the important one. If you break God's law to save your life, you will miss out on the more important one to come. (Matt 10:39)

We all understand that nothing is done "in secret" where God is concerned, don't we?? (Heb 4:13)

Maybe they're quite concerned with following God's commandments, but consider the interpretation of blood transfusion as "eating" blood to be a human invention.

In any case, I'm not really concerned with who's a "real" or "false" witness of Jehovah. All I care about is saving children's lives.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But I think that your worry as stated in the OP is prejudiced. Prejudice is a very dangerous mindset whenever and wherever it surfaces.

Do you not agree?

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.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Dawny, we are on the other side of this argument and I can assure you that all the Witnesses I know personally (and there are many of them so this is my own experience, not second hand or anecdotal stories from third parties) who have been told point blank by medical personnel that they WOULD die without blood...not one of them did.

Blood is not absolutely necessary to preserve life, even in an emergency. All that is needed is saline to keep the blood volume levels maintained so that veins do not collapse, and good medical management. EPO administered when bleeding has been stopped will enhance red cell production; cell salvage used to conserve blood that is already in the body, and keeping the level of volume up in the supply will save a life without breaking the laws of God. This has been proven among my brotherhood time and again.

Children removed from their parents's custody in order to force a blood transfusion are victims of ignorance on the part of the legal system. The courts count on the word of a financially motivated body to promote a procedure that has proven to be detrimental rather than life saving. Ignorance benefits no one.

I will give you one very personal example. A close friend of mine had a daughter who was involved in a serious car accident in our small regional town. Her spleen was ruptured and she almost bled out as a result. She and her family were pressured to have blood, but as Witnesses, they were resolute, as was their teenage daughter. Their wishes were honored reluctantly, but to their amazement, she survived and returned to health relatively quickly. After surgery to remove her damaged spleen, her blood levels returned to normal in a short space of time.

The only downside was that she had lost most of her antibodies from previous illnesses and had to be careful about infections that she was previously immune to. A small price to pay, seeing as how transfusions can leave all manner of problems from the foreign blood of one unknown person to another for the rest of their life.

She is a wife and mother today, and she has never looked back.

When we have to sign admission forms for hospital treatment here in Australia, they ask if you have EVER had a blood transfusion. There is a good reason for that.

Blood is a huge money spinner. It is a multi million dollar a year business. Don't be misled by the emotive advertising....it is meant to prop up profits, not save lives. They know the risks, but continue to promote it. That is unconscionable IMO.

Oh dear, he was serious. Well, you can't really ask for a better example of religion becoming dangerous than this- denying sound science and refusing life-saving medical procedures, potentially not only for onself, but for one's children, on the basis of religious dogma... That's just twisted.

 

[suzy smith]

I wonder if I should just jump back in here with my own personal experience of the Witnesses. My thread was not motivated by past experiences of them but at this point in the debate the subject of the Witnesses seems to have come to the front so let me give you this personal experience of them.

My ex husband was a JW. When my first son Daniel was born with medical problems that seemed to require blood transfusions my husband refused. As it turned out this treatment was not necessary and Daniel is now a healthy and happy boy.
I have read the Bible from cover to cover. I have also studied the Bible over many years. To say the Bible condemns blood transfusions is stretching the interpretation of the scriptures to a degree beyond belief. [pun intended]
But as someone that has gone head to head with the JWs many times over this subject I know that I would be better off banging my head against a brick wall!

 

[oldbadger]

I'm sorry, what?

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

Did I bang on and on about something? I posted once, I asked a question because I felt it odd to say that "blood is not essential for life" and then turn around and say you wont accept a blood transfusion because blood is important to life. Given how much is known about blood today I wanted to know what was the reason.

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.

Trust me if I want to make a tirade about JW's I very much can, I don't because guess what I know it is there belief.

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

So next time you want to come at me with a bunch of nonessential crap in your attempt to protect them against some non-existent slight that has been made, make sure I have actually said something that was offensive. Heck I'm not even an atheist, I know plenty of Christians who disagree with the JW's on their beliefs about blood transfusions. SO please go sit down somewhere...smh

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.