The Blood Doctrine and Children

by Emery 2 Replies latest jw friends

  • Emery
    Emery

    I made a promise to myself long ago that if I ever had kids they were not to get baptized at an early age (18 or younger). Something as serious as baptism needed to be heavily meditated on with a mature mindset. Permanent vows such as this are no different than a marriage vow and need to be made when they themselves are out of their “bloom of youth”.

    While mentally submersed in WTS doctrine I had ongoing debates with myself regarding the blood doctrine. Thinking about the decision I would make if I had a child in an emergency blood transfusion situation.

    I really wondered if Jehovah God would condemn me if I decided to allow my child to have a blood transfusion. Not because I had a lack of faith in the resurrection, doctrine, or even the emotional turmoil associated with it. It was because the child would not be baptized and/or have a full understanding of the matter. Children don’t understand the 1919 doctrine, the 1914 calculation, or even the bible for that matter! Yet they are to die “AS” a mature dedicated Jehovah’s Witness because their daddy was burdened with theological blood guilt?

    Who was I to decide another human’s fate? I believed these decisions belonged to each individual human WHEN they are capable of thinking and deciding theological decisions on their own. Just because they are my child or a baby…doesn’t give me that right.

    If my child later realized they no longer wanted to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I would have robbed them of a life that they had the right to live, regardless of beliefs. I reflect on this old debate now knowing the TTATT.

    Reversing roles, I began thinking….how disgustingly unfair it would’ve been had my parents allowed me to die knowing what I know now about the organization. I began seeing now the dangers of becoming one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    I had this conversation with a Pioneer sister some time ago. She reasoned, “Well there’s no guarantee that the baby would even live with a blood transfusion and then you would be placed in a bad position before Jehovah (Organization). Plus remember we can always rely on the resurrection.”

    I sat there kind of bewildered. Not because I didn’t disagree with her at the time but because she gave me a very canned response to the question. I felt that the answer she just parroted off to me was a very cheap and disrespectful way of answering a very intricate and delicate matter. This, along with the FDS 1919 doctrine is what had me on my way out emotionally and mentally.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    Same reason I left, same arguments were used. Proof in the contrary to their position can be found - see ajwrb.org and jwfacts.com for some examples.

    There are risks on both sides of an organ transplant (blood transfusion is considered an organ transplant in medical circles) and there can be complications but to simply deny it because some cruel deity would like you to prove yourself to him? There's no love in that.

    If 100% of the cases where Witnesses did not take blood resulted in positive outcomes, I may believe it. Even 100% of children under 12 (because if older, you may reason that they didn't have faith or whatever but under 12 is perfectly innocent).

    The fact that even the WT has to admit there are children who die of perfectly preventable diseases because of blood transfusions is proof that any deity is not grateful for potentially offering up a life (see Abraham and Isaac). The fact that the majority (80%) of JW's that refuse blood transfusions in life threatening situations have adverse effects shows there is a major issue with the policy. The fact that most governmental institutions and hospitals in developing countries have a strict policy of intervening in child cases and even the WTBTS doesn't send their lawyers at those cases shows that even though JW's only make up 0.1% of the population it is a MAJOR conscientious problem for everyone involved.

  • Black Sheep
    Black Sheep

    The object of the game is to lock you into the cult through guilt. Charlie Manson did it too.

    By getting members to commit acts that they would abhor if they were non-members, the leaders gain a lot of control. Who wants to admit to themselves, or their families and peers, that recruitments, abuse, shunning and deaths that they had participated in, or even just encouraged, were just plain bloody stupidity that would have been avoided if they hadn't blindly followed some nutjob?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit