Supreme Court Blood Case - WTS LOSES

by skeeter1 168 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Spike Tassel

  TD, I am offended by the totalitarianism that I see expressed in all 3 cases. Canada claims to be a multi-cultural mosaic now with freedom of religion, and yet it seems to be up to each province as to what rights parents have and what rights cultures have to perpetuate themselves. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ought to be applied uniformly throughout its territory, and within its claimed parameters:— "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

  For those uncertain as to this Canadian Charter, it can be found at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I

  As to Isaac's assertions that the Bible "in no way addresses blood transfusions", I beg to strongly differ, those teaching what I have learned from the Bible is not easy because there are over 1000 pages to it, and I have a major problem because I am not well socialized, being largely left to myself throughout most periods of my life.

  First, there it the fact that "eating blood" is forbidden, and "eating blood" is a form of "ingesting blood". I do not believe it is loving to see how close we can come to a forbidden line without going over it. Now, now that I have experienced that and couldn't stop myself from crossing into forbidden territory, I now believe that it is best to "play it safe" by not toying with the "slippery slope".

  Second, it says that blood should be "poured out onto the ground", rather than "ingested". To my way of looking at this, there is a practical reason for Jehovah's directive. After all, Isaiah 48:17 speaks of us benefiting ourselves. Less days in the hospital, less complications, more meticulous surgeons — that all sounds like benefits to me, to the surgeons, and to the taxpayers.

  Third, it says "touch nothing unclean". It has been proven that once diseases are in the blood, and that the scrrening procedures have no way of making sure that the donors disease(s) are all eliminated from the blood.

  Fourth, Psalm 146:3,5 states the following:— (v.3) Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. (v.5) Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help, Whose hope is in Jehovah his God.

  Now, there may be more principles and Bible passages which bear on this subject, but even one would be enough for me to avoid either donating my own blood for someone else's possible use, or receiving what is known to contain blood (I'm not talking about properly-bled meat).

  Trust is a delicate matter. I may chat with many, but only trust myself as directed by whom I feel completely comfortable. That is according to the free will that I now know about, and exercise as I am training myself through discussions such as this one. Iron sharpens iron, and I'm glad that it does.
• 

  shamus100

  I am not well socialized, being largely left to myself throughout most periods of my life.

  Wow, really? Thanks for clarifying that point - we would have never figured it out ourselves.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Spike says:

  TD, I am offended by the totalitarianism that I see expressed in all 3 cases. Canada claims to be a multi-cultural mosaic now with freedom of religion, and yet it seems to be up to each province as to what rights parents have and what rights cultures have to perpetuate themselves. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ought to be applied uniformly throughout its territory, and within its claimed parameters:— "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

  My reply: I am offended that the WT which claims to be based solely on the Bible and has long fought for religious freedom would exact such a totalitarian regime on its members in making such unscriptural demands as a ban on blood transfusions.

  For those uncertain as to this Canadian Charter, it can be found at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html#anchorbo-ga:l_I

  Spike says:

  As to Isaac's assertions that the Bible "in no way addresses blood transfusions", I beg to strongly differ, those teaching what I have learned from the Bible is not easy because there are over 1000 pages to it, and I have a major problem because I am not well socialized, being largely left to myself throughout most periods of my life.

  First, there it the fact that "eating blood" is forbidden, and "eating blood" is a form of "ingesting blood". I do not believe it is loving to see how close we can come to a forbidden line without going over it. Now, now that I have experienced that and couldn't stop myself from crossing into forbidden territory, I now believe that it is best to "play it safe" by not toying with the "slippery slope".

  My reply:

  The scriptures on the eating of blood are clearly, indisputably speaking of animal blood. Do you follow that? Unless you are a vegetarian you do not. It is also an indisputable fact that a blood transfusion is not eating or ingesting blood in any way. Unlike food or alcohol blood retains its form when transfused. Inject blood into the veins of a malnourished person and they will still die. Why? Because it is not food.

  Spike:

  Second, it says that blood should be "poured out onto the ground", rather than "ingested". To my way of looking at this, there is a practical reason for Jehovah's directive. After all, Isaiah 48:17 speaks of us benefiting ourselves. Less days in the hospital, less complications, more meticulous surgeons — that all sounds like benefits to me, to the surgeons, and to the taxpayers.

  My reply: The WT hypocritically does not follow this. They allow their captives to take blood fractions which are from vast supplies of blood not poured out on the ground- thus they are approving of the spirit of not pouring out blood on the ground. But again, this is animal blood to be poured out on the ground, in respect of the life taken. That is all there is to it.

  Spikes drivel:

  Third, it says "touch nothing unclean". It has been proven that once diseases are in the blood, and that the scrrening procedures have no way of making sure that the donors disease(s) are all eliminated from the blood.

  My reply:

  Not talking of physical uncleanness…speaking of ceremonial uncleanness. You are very ignorant of the bible and its meaning Spike. Might I suggest you take up Mother Goose instead? That may be more your level.

  Spike:

  Fourth, Psalm 146:3,5 states the following:— (v.3) Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. (v.5) Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help, Whose hope is in Jehovah his God.

  My reply:

  This says not to put our trust in man or riches. Where does it say to neglect our health? Nowhere. Irrelevant text.

  Spikes nonsense:

  Now, there may be more principles and Bible passages which bear on this subject, but even one would be enough for me to avoid either donating my own blood for someone else's possible use, or receiving what is known to contain blood (I'm not talking about properly-bled meat).

  My reply:

  You have shown NO, NONE, ZERO bible principles bearing on this topic. All you have shown is your own ignorance and the level of control the WT has on you.

  Spikes conclusion:

  Trust is a delicate matter. I may chat with many, but only trust myself as directed by whom I feel completely comfortable. That is according to the free will that I now know about, and exercise as I am training myself through discussions such as this one. Iron sharpens iron, and I'm glad that it does.

  My reply: All you have sharpened in the obvious- the WT is a mind-controlling cult who have no concept of the Bible, and they are wrong as wrong can be about blood transfusions.
• 

  hotspur

  I do not believe it is loving to see how close we can come to a forbidden line without going over it.

  Spike - Funny how you can see things one way and yet not reason that it could be equally as valid in the converse. As Isaac has stated you can use fractions of blood which hadn't been poured out. Tell me the difference in skating this close to the edge please?

  One day you and Reniaa will perform 'joined up' thinking.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  I don't subscribe to fractions at all, personally. I balance things out for myself, after considering the input of others.
• 

  isaacaustin

  but the WT does- and that shows their hypocrisy and duplicity. Members are required to follow the demands of the GB- including the ban they have imposed on blood...while the WT- in their trying to sllllooowllly lift the ban they know they were wrong on but can't do immediately due to backlash and legal issues- allows their members to take fractions. Fractions are derived from blood not poured out.

  Of course, this is all irrelevant since it was simply dietary restrictions on animal blood. The WT should find a new avenue as they are utter failures theologically.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  Isaac's not my conscience, even if he trolls as though he is.
• 

  isaacaustin

  No, I am not. Bit neither does the Bible direct your conscience- the WT interpetations of it do.
• 

  TD

  TD, I am offended by the totalitarianism that I see expressed in all 3 cases. Canada claims to be a multi-cultural mosaic now with freedom of religion, and yet it seems to be up to each province as to what rights parents have.

  I understand. I feel very strongly about parent's rights. But parental rights cannot be absolute. Wouldn't you agree that the State at some point has the responsibility to protect the child?

  First, there it the fact that "eating blood" is forbidden, and "eating blood" is a form of "ingesting blood".

  "Ingestion" is a very specific medical term that describes the introduction of foreign material into the alimentary canal via the mouth. Foreign substances introduced into the respiratory system are not ingested, they are aspirated. Foreign tissue and objects introduced into the body via surgery are not ingested, they are transplanted or implanted. Foreign tissue and substances introduced into the body intravenously or intramuscularly are not ingested, they are transfused or injected. These terms are not interchangable with, "Ingestion."

  I do not believe it is loving to see how close we can come to a forbidden line without going over it. Now, now that I have experienced that and couldn't stop myself from crossing into forbidden territory, I now believe that it is best to "play it safe" by not toying with the "slippery slope".

  I think the "Slippery slope" here is the fallacy of equivocation. Similarity is not equality.

  There is certainly a similarity between taking water into your respiratory system (Your lungs) and taking water into your digestive system (Your stomach) Both acts could correctly be described as "Taking in water." But drinking a glass of water and drowning in a lake are two entirely different things. They are not physically equivalent acts in anything other than a superficial similarity that can only be described using fuzzy, generic terms like, "Taking in water."

  There is certainly a similarity between having sex with your spouse and having sex with the spouse of another person. Both acts fall into the larger category of "Sex." Does that similarity make them morally equivalent acts? Of course not. Would having sex with your spouse constitute "seeing how close you can cross into forbidden territory?" Of course not. The morality of many acts depends entirely on the context in which they are done.

  There is a certain similarity between "Taking in" the tissue of another human being via transplant or transfusion and "Taking In" the tissue of another human being by eating it. Again though, this does not make them either physical or moral equivalents and to try and imply equivalency between two separate acts by referring to them both in generic terms is the fallacy of equivocation.

  I think this is what you are attempting to do through your use of the term, "Ingestion." Equivalency is not established through semantics. It is established through a concrete explanation of the rule, followed by a clear demonstration that this rule is violated by the act in question

  Second, it says that blood should be "poured out onto the ground", rather than "ingested". To my way of looking at this, there is a practical reason for Jehovah's directive. After all, Isaiah 48:17 speaks of us benefiting ourselves. Less days in the hospital, less complications, more meticulous surgeons — that all sounds like benefits to me, to the surgeons, and to the taxpayers.

  The Bible makes no general statements about blood. Every single mention of blood in the Bible is given in a clear situational context.

  Every single scripture that you can quote to me from the Bible that speaks of pouring blood out upon the ground is specific instruction for what to do with an animal after you have killed it. (Lev 17:13; Deut 12:20-24; 15:22-23)

  Wild animals do not let you walk up to them and slit their throat in the Kosher manner. Methods for putting a wild animal to death from a distance (e.g. An arrow or spear) would not sufficiently bleed the carcass and the Law therefore gave the additional instruction of pouring the creature's blood out before the flesh could be eaten.

  I think JW's collectively have lost sight of the fact that the animal carcass itself is the receptacle from which the blood was poured out. The blood was not first removed, and then poured out. The blood was removed by being poured out. The animal carcass was the direct recipient of action, not the blood.

  To attempt to apply these provisions of the Law in a medical setting requires that we forget all that, ignore the context and separate the "Removal" and the "Pouring out" into two separate and distinct acts that are entirely fictitious.

  Third, it says "touch nothing unclean". It has been proven that once diseases are in the blood, and that the scrrening procedures have no way of making sure that the donors disease(s) are all eliminated from the blood.

  By that reasoning, there is much more of modern medicine that you would have to reject than just the transfusion of blood. Did you have your childhood immunizations when you were young? Did you ever have a tetanus booster after an injury? Do you know exactly how these preparations are made and what's in them?

  Fourth, Psalm 146:3,5 states the following:— (v.3) Do not put YOUR trust in nobles, Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. (v.5) Happy is the one who has the God of Jacob for his help, Whose hope is in Jehovah his God.

  I would submit that trusting a group of men in Brooklyn on a life or death matter that the Bible is completely silent about constitutes "Putting your trust in men." A fundamental feature of the Law, even in Jesus' day was that saving life takes precedence over any question of interpretation. In Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees, it is apparent that he accepted this principle. I'm continually puzzled why Jehovah's Witnesses do not.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  To TD. First off, I am technically oriented in some fields, but medicine and law are 2 that I am not, at least not yet. That will take observation on my part as I am introduced to the practical concepts involved. Even so, I like to discuss things so that any layman can feel that can ask me to explain things from their cultural perspective/ background. Now to the particular points you raised, as much as I know how to respond to them presently.

  As to parental rights, as with any human rights, I believe that the Word of God (properly communicated, properly translated, properly understood, and properly applied) is THE guide on all of that. The Scriptures states that the nations are as dust of Jehovah's proverbial scale. That means that their rulings are only valid in as much as they adhere to the Word of God (properly communicated, properly translated, properly understood, and properly applied). The WTS (in all its forms) is no different from any other body, other than I recognize that, in general, the WTS appears to have a greater knowledge of at least the NWT and what has gone into it.

  Daniel 2:44 indicates to me that soon the State will be irrelevant. We ought to fear God, and not man (even the State). Diplomacy and respect for the full range of human rights is key, including the right to self-determination with the aid of those trusted by the person at issue.

  Since my own usage of terms does not satisfy you, I now turn to Webster's Third New International Dictionary (3 volume, 1966). There are 2 basic definitions:— 1) to take in for digestion; 2) to take in (swallow, absorb).

  The blood of the donor is certainly "absorbed" by the blood of the recipient, at least unless/ until it is "rejected" by the recipient.

  In any case, I do not put my trust in nobles for my health care, but in Jehovah (Psalm 146:3,5). When I say Jehovah, I believe that he speaks to me via my conscience. I must serve Him with MY power of reason, not with anyone else's, period.

  There is immoral sex even with one's own scripturally-legal spouse. If it is non-consensual in any way, either by either human party or by Jehovah, then it is immoral. That is my understanding.

  Also (and it's not been addressed here by others), Isaiah 48:17 speaks of us benefiting ourselves. Less days in the hospital, less complications, more meticulous surgeons — that all sounds like benefits to me, to the surgeons, and to the taxpayers.

  You are right in saying that there is much than heterogenous blood transfusions that I would reject. Having been born a month premature with resultant deficiencies (to my skin, digestive system, lungs, and frontal lobe-ocular connection), the 3-in-1 immunization I received about the time when I was turning 7, CAUSED me to get all 3. Truly, the "wisdom of the world" is "foolishness with God"

  As I said earlier in this post, while the medical community, news media, and WTS info all have their value, it is the practical value and benefit in my life that is key to me. I certainly am a witness of the superlative power of Jehovah's word. Let God be found true, despite the failings of all else.