by skeeter1 168 Replies latest watchtower medical
Please see post #6257 of CC, page 5:
If what is related below can be documented beyond all doubt, would the declared "ulterior motives" of both Fred Franz and Clayton Woodworth bear directly upon the authenticity of so-called spirit-directed theology and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses?
only if they haven't been factored out of the analysis, I suggest.
Thank you, Spike Tassel, for your reply.
CC
Spike,
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.
I understand what you're saying, but the State has to (Or at least should) treat all religions equally and not elevate one over the other.
Even if we ignore that, I think the position you've taken here would stand or fall based upon whether or not the JW teaching on blood can be shown to be a properly understood and properly applied Biblical teaching. I think that such proof is lacking
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).
It's not necessarily that your usage is unsatisfactory. The point was that if you were using the word, "Ingestion" as a medical term as defined in a medical dictionary, then it clearly would not cover transfusion. On the other hand, if you were using it generically, then you are falling into the fallacy of equivocation.
Two disparate acts are not rendered moral equivalents simply because they can both be described with the same generic term.
The blood of the donor is certainly "absorbed" by the blood of the recipient, at least unless/ until it is "rejected" by the recipient.
We've got the exact same problem with the term, "Absorbed." "Absorbtion" as a biological term is specific to catabolism. --The breakdown and reassimilation of material ingested as food. This would not cover transfusion. On the other hand, using the term generically to imply that the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood are either physically or morally equivalent would be the exact same equivocation.
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.
I agree. But this emphasizes the point that similarity is not equality. Spousal rape is not morally equivalent to a consensual act simply because they both fall into the larger category of, "Sex." Adultery is not morally equivalent to marital sex for the exact same reason.
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.
I don't think anyone denies that transfusion should be avoided if at all possible. The problem is that quality non-blood alternatives don't exist for every situation. A few examples include:
There are currently no non-blood substitutes for platelets and none on the foreseeable horizon. As long as cancer remains the scourge of mankind and we have nothing better to offer than radiation and chemo, this will be an issue with Witness patients.
Blood conservation techniques developed of Witness patients are not entirely applicable once the blood is gone. This happens to trauma victims everyday. Catastrophic blood loss occurs before help arrives and the patient still needs hours of emergency surgery to put them back together.
Bloodless medicine is still largely unavailable in many poor and backward countires. A bloodless liver transplant performed in a developed county is fantastic. But it means very little to the poor man in Uganda whose legs have been crushed by a truck.
Severe forms of leukemia, aplastic anemia, lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease were once thought to be incurable. Now, thousands of lives are saved every year, but transfusion remains an integral part of most treatments.
It sounds like much of your information comes from Witness publications. This isn't wrong, but you have to realize that the Witnesses have a vested interest in only presenting the benefits of refusing blood and ignoring the risks. And the Witnesses have been honest and open about this fact. The publication Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom open acknowledges that medical information has been presented to, "...strengthen their appreciation for the prohibition that God himself had put in place." (p.184) In other words, medical information is presented for the express purpose of reinforcing the teaching and nothing else.
Canadian media often show ads soliciting blood donation. It appears as a "first resort" in several jurisdictions across Canada.
Spike Tassell,
Are you on drugs? Where in the hell did you see that? Do you even live in Canada?
Holy shit man, give your head a shake.
WTF do you think we do up here? Have blood-orgies???
What do I think of your views on blood? You probably don't care, but here it goes. When it comes to the rights of children, the courts will always overrule a parent that denies any child help in any form - be it medication, or an organ transplant.
I guess it's up to every dub to move the hell out of Canada and go to Uganda. In fact, I would donate money for some tickets!
Spike,
You sound like an adherent of Jehovah, who wants to do everything in his power to honor what you believe Jehovah has written. You abstain from blood, and even abstain from fractions. Thought, I can surmise from your writings that your consciense is in a disconnect about how the Society could give its endorsement to fractions.
I am going to ask you about "current therapy" and your stand. Current therapy is where one has a small portion, say a cup, of his blood completely removed from his body. The lab technician takes the blood into another room, a lab. The technician mixes it with isotopes, chemicals, etc. At a later time, perhaps an hour or four later, the patient comes back to the treatment center. Then, the technician retransfuses the blood back into the body.
I think you would consider this an unholy practice that is against your understanding of Jehovah. You will reason that the blood is completely severed from the body, and is not to be later transfused. Your Bible trained reasoning will state that this could be likened to autologous blood transfusions (i.e. storing one's own blood for upcoming surgery). Both autologous blood storage and current therapy are a complete severing outside the body and then a later retransfusion of whole blood. The only thing different is the time and amount of blood taken.
Please read the October 15, 2000 Watchtower article on blood. It explains that Jehovah's Witness must abstain from blood. They are not allowed to prestore their blood for surgery. BUT.....BUT......BUT....the Watchtower Society says that "current therapy" IS a matter of each person's conscience.
Look at the long blood form the Watctower provided you with. How does it make you feel to see that other Jehovah's Witnesses can accept current therapy, give it to their medical doctors, and still claim they "abstain from blood" and "don't take whole blood cell transfusions" and "can't prestore their own blood for anticipated surgery." Think of how the doctor/nurse silently shakes his in disbeleif.
Let's get back to these Canadian children. In the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, many likely died because they couldn't have "current therapy". Now, they are allowed to have it. Ditto with fractions.
The Watchtower Society misrepresents secular author's writings on blood. See "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation" published in the Journal of Church & State. It goes "quote by quote" through "How Can Blood Save Your Life?" It shows the Watchtower's snippet of a quote against the original writings. The conclusion, the Watchtower misquotes most of the time, building a flawed argument that children and families are basing their opinion. If you think the Truth, should be just that, the TRUTH...then you should write the Watchtower Society and tell them to, at least, play straight when quoting others.
The Watchtower coerces people into the blood ban. Disfellowshipping, tattle-taling, disassociation, shunning, and the ever present HLC elders try to ensure that the followers do not accept blood. Shouldn't the individuals make their own decision, between them and Jehovah? Similar to the way the soldiers who ate the unbled meat. It was between the soldiers and Jehovah. No one shunned them, tattle taled, disfellowshipped them, etc.
Skeeter
As I said before, 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. The congregation's decisions are not my concern, my relationship with Jehovah is. Being on JWN is helping me learn to prepare for and face whatever reactions and issues may come up. I'd rather be shrewd than inexperienced. Penalties is not my style.
Tassell,
REmember: when nothing makes sense with your logic, rely on Jehover. Because that's all that you've got.
That's about it shamus100. Everybody else just does a cut-and-run as soon as they hear that you're actually trying to get to where you're actually comfortable in your own skin, instead of simply going by the advice of the gang.
