JWs in Ghana disown 5-year-old son for receiving blood transfusion

by brizzzy 31 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mary

  He has since disowned the poor boy for having received blood, as lawyers from the church intervened and secured his bail.

  What a total fucktard. Even in Watchtower La-la-land, I've never heard of any parent disowning their child because the State stepped in and forced a blood transfusion. This is a perfect example of this stinking cult recruiting the uneducated and uninformed into their ranks. Throw in a bit of cultural paranoia, ignorance and an irrational fear that God is going to murder you for your child getting a blood transfusion to save his life, and you've got a recipe for disaster which appears to be the case here.

  The only surprise is that "lawyers from the church intervened and secured [the father's] bail." Ya.....can't let a nutcase like this rot in prison.
• 

  keyser soze

  I have to agree with Blues Brother. As much as we want to blame the WT for every evil under the sun, I doubt that they would endorse disowning a five-year-old for having a blood transfusion forced upon him.
• 

  PSacramento

  Here is the thing, has the WT or even his local elders stepped in and said that he SHOULDN'T do this and to take the poor boy back?

  Doesn't seem like it.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  The local elders are probably just as loony, and the GB only meets on Wednesday mornings, IIRC, so well, the poor kid's just going to have to wait until holy spirit directs them to address the issue.
• 

  keyser soze

  Here is the thing, has the WT or even his local elders stepped in and said that he SHOULDN'T do this and to take the poor boy back?

  Doesn't seem like it.

  How do you know they haven't? Just because it wasn't reported in the papers?

  I have only my own personal experience in dealing with elders to judge how they would handle such a situation. But none of the ones I knew, as flawed as they may have been, would have supported this man's position. His decision to withhold a blood transfusion from his child, sure. But his decision to disown that child when it was forced on him? No.

  I suspect there is more to this then has been reported. As Scully pointed out, disowning the child may have had more to do with the issue of financial liability.
• 

  JWinprotest

  How do you know they haven't? Just because it wasn't reported in the papers?

  The fact that the Society's lawyers bailed him out of jail shows they support what he did....IMO.
• 

  keyser soze

  The fact that the Society's lawyers bailed him out of jail shows they support what he did....IMO.

  It shows only that they support his methods of trying to prevent the blood transfusion, which is what he was arrested for, not his subsequent decision to disown his child. The two have nothing to do with each other.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  If this is an accurate story, I wonder if it is some kind of cultural thing.

  In many third world countries, for example, if a person gets, say, leprosy, they become a social outcast. Nobody, not even their closest family wants them any more - they are effectively disowned by their nearest and dearest. A dreadful stigma is attached to the disease that is hard to shift - despite the fact that these people can be cured, the disease isn't contagious, they can live productive lives, etc.

  I'm assuming the poor little boy is now seen in a similar way - as 'tainted,' 'unclean' on a deep, gut level by his father. Tragic story.
• 

  Mary

  keyser said: His decision to withhold a blood transfusion from his child, sure. But his decision to disown that child when it was forced on him? No.

  Keyser is right on this one. While the Society is ultimately responsible for the blood issue, there has never been any mention made of 'disowning' your child or even your husband or wife if the State forces a blood transfusion on them. That this idiot would do something so callous, reflects the same mentality that exists elsewhere: 'You may not be to blame for what happened, but you're tainted goods now, so piss off'.

  Since this has hit the internet now (and will cause the Society yet even more bad publicity), I wouldn't be surprised if the local goons had a talk with him and made him recant what he said.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Thats crazy, and even goes against what JW's teach. "A man not providing for his own household is worse then a man without faith" - thought don't agree with a lot that goes on, I know that this would not be taught as acceptable, pointless to spread something that somebody who claims to be goes against their rules.