thanks for the research. it does explain a little more.
thanks for the research. it does explain a little more.
Maybe I did not read your other post correctly, Didn't you say the lawyers were working pro- bono? if so why do you need to ask for donations? As far as lawyers working pro- bono they usually do it to to make a name for themselves, not because they actually care for you or think they can win the case, Examples; the Menedes brothers, Scott Peterson, ... just to name a few.
How exactly did the Watchtower Society kill your child? It seems silly to acuse the WTS of murder. That is like sueing the Catholic church because your child ate a wafer at communion & died of an allergic reaction from it. Although tragic, if it was a belief to follow that course, then it was a religious right to die. Whether you THINK it is wrong or not. No one ever wants their child to die, it is very painful to say the least. However, the Courts usually intervene and get a court order to give the blood anyway. But out of all the times the hospitals tell you that your child will die if they don't have blood , not one can prove they will live if they do get it. My brother is a true example of that, they refused blood for their 2 year old daughter, the hospital got a court order that said the child would die without blood and that she would PROBABLY live if she got it. After she recieved the blood she went into cardiac arrest and died, after several attemps they got her heart beating again and she finally made it. but what she really needed was a pediatric balloon to pump for her heart & oxygenate the blood & to give her heart a rest.
We do believe the Bible, and it clearly says to take blood in any form is detestable to God.( LEV 3:17 17:10, 11,14; Deut 12:16;23) Also the Bible gives the COMMANDMENT to Abstain from Blood. (Acts 15;19,20,29) If a Doctor told you to Abstain from alcohol then would it be ok to inject it into your veins through an IV ? That is why we do not take blood transfusions. Since we follow the bible to the letter, and the bible is Gods word & God is the one telling us to not take blood into our bodies (not the WTS) then Maybe you would be better off sueing GOD.
I sympathize for the loss of your child, but It would be very surprising if the court rules in your favor.
and it clearly says to take blood in any form
Those verses "clearly" say this? I could not find this phrase "any form" in any of the verses. I think you are reading a great deal into those verses!!
Oh, and are you aware that the WTS has been allowing people to take blood fractions now? It's so tricky, most JWs aren't aware of their current policy. In fact, you can pretty much reconstruct blood almost entirely if you just take it in fractions. How can this be if the Bible clearly disallows any form of blood to be taken into the body in ANY way?
Oh, and by the way... WELCOME to the forum!
(Who never was a JW FYI)
We do believe the Bible, and it clearly says to take blood in any form is detestable to God.( LEV 3:17 17:10, 11,14; Deut 12:16;23) Also the Bible gives the COMMANDMENT to Abstain from Blood. (Acts 15;19,20,29) If a Doctor told you to Abstain from alcohol then would it be ok to inject it into your veins through an IV ?
You're quite the Bible scholar....
First of all, the Bible never uses equivocal terms like, "Take blood", "Taking in blood", etc. The Bible prohibits only the specific act of eating it. If the transfusion of blood and the consumption of blood are in some way, equivalent acts, then the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the claimant. (You)
Second, the phrase, apecesqai....kai aimatoV (To be abstaining....from blood) was spoken strictly within the context of the Law and it is the finite act (Eating) implicit in this context that completes it. Invoking a partial predicate as an independent construction and presenting it is a statement of complete thought (As you have done) is grammatically questionable at best.
Third, a doctor would not tell you to, "Abstain from alcohol" without first establishing a prior context. The reason for this is simple: "Abstain" negates action. "Alcohol" is not an action. The thought is therefore incomplete because a progressive verb is missing. It is the context which completes the thought by providing the finite act to abstain from. Therefore the phrase means entirely different things depending upon the context in which it appears.
For example, if my dermatologist told me to, "Abstain from alcohol" in the context of the treatment of a skin condition, then he would have made a specific reference to the topical application of alcohol to the skin. However if my wife's obstetrician told her to, "Abstain from alcohol" in the context of a pregnancy, then he would have made a specific reference to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. In this example, I would still be free to drink alcoholic beverages and my wife would still be free to use cosmetics containing alcohol or use it as a topical antiseptic despite the fact that we've both been told to abstain from it.
It's the same thing with the mention of "Blood" in the Apostolic Decree. In context, it is a specific reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law.
Quite aside from proper grammar, the ludicrous nature of this analogy can also be illustrated by comparison. The football star, Walter Peyton suffered from a liver disease before he died and was expressly told to, "Abstain from meat." Would it have been a violation of this instruction to accept a liver transplant? Of course not. The transplant of human tissue is not the same thing as the consumption of human tissue. This is a distinction that even your religion recognizes.
Yet your analogy is built upon the same flawed notion --That the transplant of living tissue (In this case, blood) is the same thing as the consumption of that tissue (Blood). Physically, ethically, morally and ontologically, they are not the same thing. Biblical injunctions against eating blood do not speak to the issue of transfusion.
However, the Courts usually intervene and get a court order to give the blood anyway.
inthetruth, It is interesting that you left out an important medical fact in your post. If you're an honest person, why not portray the whole picture?
The wts' coercion of its members (threats of disassociation, shunning, loss of eternal life, and gory method of death) causes the hospital to have to get a court order to administer proper care to the patient. Court orders take time. That means--hello!--care isdelayed. Delay in lifesaving medical care is directly correlated with higher risk of death and disability--caused by your borganization.
The 2nd reason why the wts is legally liable is because they lie to their members about the medical risks and benefits of using blood products. Here is an analysis of the lies the wts has told to its members about the medical aspects of blood-based therapies: http://www.jwinfo.8m.com/misquotes.htm and http://ajwrb.org/science/index.shtml
The fact remains that, if refusing blood products is a religious decision, you should not need to justify your decision with science or other rationalizations--especially rationalizations based upon outright lies and distortion of facts!
By the way, why are you resurrecting such an old thread?
And--it is pretty heartless of you to confront shunnedfather in this way. He lost a child; even if you disagree with his beliefs or lawsuit, leave him alone for Pete's sake. Picking on him is really low of you. If you really wanted to debate the blood issue, you would have started your own thread about it and not made it about shunnedfather. This is just bullying on your part.