Supreme Court Blood Case - WTS LOSES

by skeeter1 168 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  The JW parent organization understands the illegitimacy of using logical fallacies in arguments.

  A very decent article appeared in the May, 22, 1990 issue of Awake! that briefly described five common logical fallacies and why they should be avoided.

  The three fallacies I listed in connection with blood have all been rejected by the JW parent organization in other contexts.

  In 1980, they decided that organ transplantation did not constitute cannibalism. In so doing, they rejected the argument of equivocation. Donated organs and tissue "taken in" via transplant need not be viewed as having been eaten even in principle.

  The JW parent organization also rejects the argument from silence in deciding medical issues since it is self evident that the Bible cannot comment directly on things alien to its historical context. Medical questions that the Bible cannot and does not address have often been considered in JW literature:

  Artificial Insemination -- Awake! August 8 1974

  Organ Transplantation -- The Watchtower March 15, 1980.

  In-Vitro fertilization -- The Watchtower June 1, 1981

  Bone marrow transplant -- The Watchtower May 15, 1984 .

  Autopsy -- The Watchtower April 1, 1987

  Autologous transfusion -- The Watchtower March 1, 1989

  Post-exposure vaccines and serums -- The Watchtower June 1, 1990

  Vaccinations -- The Watchtower October 1, 1994

  Not one of these issues was decided by the Bible's silence. -Quite the contrary, the Bible's silence is what opened the door and made these matters of conscience within the JW community.

  The JW organization also rejects the fallacy of generalization. An article in the June 22, 2000 issue of Awake! explained that this is actually a common propaganda technique that is used to lead people to a conclusion that is not necessarily true. Even if we overlook that fact, the JW organization also recognizes that the symbolism of Christ's blood was transferred at the start of the Christian era to the sacrements of communion (i.e. The emblems of Memorial) Wine and unleavened bread were the new symbols. Animal sacrifices no longer had any sin atoning value at all and no longer symbolized the blood of Christ. Without that connection, this generalization is baseless to begin with.

  It is perplexing that what the JW organization recognizes as flawed reasoning in other contexts is used when the subject of blood comes up, but that's unfortunately just the way it is.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  As to TD's points, I don't know where to go to take a WT course on logic and the Bible, so that my study could become fully meaningful. [Spike Tassel] is NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses. My WT baptism was, by this public announcement, apparently ruled as invalid.
• 

  isaacaustin

  you sure you weren't just dfed for what most JWs are usually dfed for?
• 

  Spike Tassel

  each case is different. The more different the case, the more different the outcome.
• 

  DaCheech

  i don't get it spike
• 

  Spike Tassel

  That's just as well.
• 

  observador

  Guys,

  sorry to say, but the Watchtower actually WON that case. Here's why: first, we have the court saying that the girl should have her legal expenses paid for by the state. Second, the court is saying that "mature" minors should have some saying in future medical decisions of that type.

  The Watchtower not only is having her money back, but will also coach their young victims to the point where they can cause a good impression on the judge in future cases.

  Result: no blood transfusions for minor, sick, brainwashed JWs. This couldn't be better for the Watchtower.

  Observador.
• 

  Spike Tassel

  Thanks, Observador. Perhaps you could start a New Topic, with source material to support your take
• 

  sammielee24

  My understanding was that although a minor may have a say, and while their mental and emotional abilities to understand their situation may be heard, that in no way allows them to absolutely violate the law that says that children as mnors will be treated as minors. In this case, it was a definite win because it takes the control of a child away from the cult and places it with the law in matters of physical harm and/or death ie medical issues. The more control one removes from a cult, the less control they have.

  The money won from the government to pay the kids legal fees, is most likely a part of allowing a minor that voice..part of democracy and part of the social system that provides for a lawyer if one cannot afford to do so on their own. That is the way it works. Had this child been wealthy, there would have been no likely payment of those costs and in essence, if this were a child abuse case against the WTS that was overturned, would we object to the lawyer for the child getting paid by the government?

  WTS lost this one - they will continue to lose time and again as people get more and more fed up with all the time, energy and taxpayer money spent on this type of issues. The society is under the magnifying glass in at least a few countries now regarding their behavior in all manner of things and this will only serve to single them out and quite possibly shut them down in countries where cults are not allowed to thrive as a religion. As this takes hold, it is like a domino effect as those countries share information with others and it becomes easier to either force the WTS to mainstream, shut down operations or disappear altogether. sammieswife.