I've never heard of someone being disfellowshipped for gluttony.
The ONE 'sin' I NEVER heard of in all my time as a JW . . . . .
I do know of 2 that were privately reproved for that........hard to believe but one was a relative and another a pioneer brother in my congregation.
I knew of one who was reproved for gluttony.
There's a QFR from some years ago, explaining that in the case where doctors give a 100% certain diagnosis that if the preganancy continues, it will result in the death of both mother and fetus, that an abortion would be a conscience matter. I believe the example in the article was an ectopic pregnancy, where there is 0% (or virtually 0%) chance the fetus will be carried to term.
*** w75 3/15 pp. 191-192 Questions From Readers ***
Does a substantial health danger justify having an abortion?
While this is a problem involving very deep human feelings and concerns, the perfect counsel of God shows that a potential risk to mother or child does not justify inducing an abortion.
Human views on this question are varied and often conflicting. But fundamental to the Bible view is life and respect for it. Human life has both a divine origin and a divine purpose. (Gen. 1:27; Job 33:4; Ps. 100:3-5) Throughout the Bible we see reflected God’s deep respect for life. He lovingly urged humans to treasure their lives and to respect as sacred the lives of others. One who, without regard for divine law, took the life of another human, even a babe in the womb, was both guilty and accountable.—Gen. 9:5, 6; Ex. 21:14, 22-25.
It cannot be denied that sometimes a pregnant woman faces a considerable danger. A health problem, such as diabetes, hypertension or other cardio-vascular diseases, may lead sincerely concerned doctors to conclude that her life is in jeopardy. She may be told, ‘Either have an abortion, or you will die.’ Or abortion may be recommended when it seems that the child may be born blind or deformed, such as when the mother contracts rubella (measles) during the pregnancy. Some might reason in such cases that having an abortion is actually showing respect for life. Though in no way minimizing the seriousness of such problems or the sincerity of those recommending the abortion, one should have in mind the life of both the mother and the child.
There is no such thing today as a perfect pregnancy, for all humans are imperfect. (Rom. 5:12) Thus every pregnant woman faces a certain risk; the sad fact is that some women, even healthy women, die during pregnancy and childbirth. (Gen. 35:16-19) Is every pregnancy to be aborted just because a risk to the mother’s life or health exists? Obviously not. True, in some instances the danger is greater than normal because of the woman’s age or health. Still, do not most women, including many who face unusual risks, survive childbirth? And it must be admitted that however well meant it is, a medical diagnosis can be wrong. So how could one who accepts God’s view of the sacredness of life conclude that a potential danger would justify an abortion? Is the developing child’s life to be cut off simply because of what might occur?
Similarly, with every pregnancy there is the possibility that the child will be born with a defect or deformity. "About one in 14 babies is born with a genetic disorder; the afflicted range from the diabetic . . . to the hopeless cripple who may live only a few days." (New York TimesMagazine, Sept. 8, 1974, p. 100) Should this potential risk lead to the conclusion that all pregnancies should be ended by abortion? Not at all.
Here too in some instances the risk of the child’s having a defect may be above normal. This seems to be so, for example, when the woman is over forty years of age or in cases where she took certain potent medicines or contracted a potentially damaging disease in the early stages of pregnancy. About 10 to 15 percent of infants born to mothers infected with rubella during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy have some harmful effects of the disease that are recognizable in the first year of life. (Of course, this also means that 85 to 90 percent of such children are not thus affected.) But how can one having deep respect for life say that a mere potential risk of damage to a child justifies ending the developing child’s life?
Illustrating that such dangers must be viewed as still only possibilities is the case of a woman in South Africa. Before she was aware of her pregnancy she received an injection for a kidney ailment. Later her doctor said that, as a result, her child would be either an imbecile or horribly deformed; he urged her to have an abortion. When she learned from Jehovah’s witnesses what the Bible says about respect for life, she declined the abortion. She realized that, even if her child was damaged, Jehovah could undo the damage in the coming New Order. (Compare Isaiah 35:5, 6; Revelation 21:4.) What was the outcome? She gave birth to a healthy baby girl. But even if her daughter had been affected and needed extra care and treatment, would that change the rightness of deciding to let the girl live, with the prospect of eternal life?
Consequently, a woman who has been urged to have a therapeutic abortion because of a danger to her health or life, or to her child, needs to fix in mind the Bible’s view. A possibleorpotential danger, even a grave one, does not justify taking matters into one’s own hands and deliberately cutting off the life of the child in the womb. Deciding according to the Scriptural view will take real faith and courage, but it assuredly will be the proper decision, and one that Jehovah will approve of forever.
Sometimes the treatment of a diseased condition, such as cancer of the cervix, causes the death of the developing embryo. But this may be an unavoidable side effect of the treatment; abortion is neither the treatment itself nor the objective. Similarly, in some cases a fertilized ovum implants and begins to grow in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Such a tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot develop fully in this small tube; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born.
I have neice who suprised me with the information that, when she got pregnant as a teenager, my brother demanded that she get an abortion. She ended up miscarrying instead.
It shocked me, because while my brother has always been a sort of fringe witness, I always figured he was a true believer. My neice at the time believed the religion to be "the truth" too, though she was never baptised, thankfully.
btw, I agree with Tuesday, gluttony is the sin you'll never see a JW disfellowshipped for.
My ex sister-in-law had two while she was still in (the elders never learned about them) and then was disfellowshipped for having sex the week before her marrige to a JW.
how can you just df someone for abortion what if they are repentant as Iam sure its a harrowing experience for any woman to go through that they will carry forever.
and what would be the purpose. - this is just an excuse for sister gossip to share her juicy morsel. Mary is probably 25 stone. - does this poor girl pose a threat to the cleanliness of the cong? I think not.
and as for gluttony this is one of those things that really Ps me off. - like smoking - eating junk food can cause cancer and is therefore also a defilement of the flesh. - why not df people who go to McDonalds all the time as well as those who smoke..? and do anything that could harm the flesh?
what about piercings? I had my navel done and my stepdad said it was wrong and not to let anyone know in case it stumbled them. - well how is it different from an ear? Im still putting a hole in my body? wtf?
I guess the two of us who know people that were privately reproved (could have been df'd if not repentant) for gluttony are either lying or confused.
I always wondered about the gluttony issue as well. Especially considering most of the elders in our congregation were what you would consider to be on the 'hefty' side, and were well known to frequent the local McD's before field service and order large meals. Or to be seen at the local pizza parlour on Sundays after meetings pigging out. And yet they had no problems counceling others on their transgressions. I asked my elder father about this once. Apparently there are different levels of sins. *laughs*