.
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17117567/
I wasn't going to bring it up, but I feel like you are all family, so I might as well let you all in on the news: I am the father of Anna Nicole's baby, and my lawyers and I will be filing the necessary papers very soon.
I don't have a lot of financial resources, but I hope with the good wishes and support of everyone here, justice will prevail!!
No Apologies
p.s. can anyone tell me, is my baby a boy or a girl?
ethicist says b.c.
blood feud may save children and jehovah's witness parents.
published: thursday, february 1, 2007 | 8:46 pm et.
Scully,
I missed one of your earlier posts, so I may not have replied to every point you made.
do you think it is possible that they might one day be grateful that someone intervened and gave them a chance to live and choose for themselves whether the belief system is what they want to follow or not? What if it was you as an infant and your parents were going to let you die? Would you want someone to take YOUR side, when your parents were choosing to abide by the tenets of their religious beliefs?
First of all, you are assuming that even with blood, they are going to live. Thats not necessarily true. What I as the child in that situation would want, years later after the fact, doesn't really make a whole lot of difference. We are talking about children too young to make any kind of decision like this. In that case, the parents are the ones are responsible. If they make the wrong decision, well then, they are going to live with that.
I wouldn't want a child of mine to die or be injured because I was too stupid or brainwashed to realize the danger I was putting them in.
No one would. But I think you're walking a very thin line when you start calling other people's choices stupid. Who are you to tell them that?
I think its stupid that a woman would choose to end a perfectly viable pregnancy just because she doesn't want to be a parent. Maybe the government should step in and stop her from getting an abortion. After all, it would save a life, right? You keep insisting that's more important than any other consideration.
No Apologies
ethicist says b.c.
blood feud may save children and jehovah's witness parents.
published: thursday, february 1, 2007 | 8:46 pm et.
Junction Guy,
I ran into trouble trying to post here last night too. I gave up and went to bed.
To reply to your question, I'm not defending the parent's religious rights. I mean I believe that every one should be free to believe or not believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm someone else. In this case I think their religion is a money-hungry scam that does far more harm than good in the world. But if it makes them happy, good for them.
The right I see being threatened here is the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children. And once again I see you give the example of parents who deliberately abuse their kids. That's not what we are talking about here. These parents I would imagine, wanted to have children very badly, if they actually pursued some type of fertilization process, which seems to be the case. They want children, and they want their children to have healthy and happy lives. But as you know, they have been persuaded to believe that most forms of blood transfusions are not allowed by God. Is this a stupid belief? You and I will say yes. Most people will say yes. But its not our kids. We are not responsible for them. The parents are.
And I'm not even a parent. I can't imagine how someone who is, would ever accept the idea that some stranger could come in and dictate life or death decisions for their child. What gives them the right??? Scully, are you a mom? Would you ever let someone take your child away?
No Apologies
ethicist says b.c.
blood feud may save children and jehovah's witness parents.
published: thursday, february 1, 2007 | 8:46 pm et.
Well somehow my reply to Scully got lost somewhere in the Internets tubes. I'll try again.
Scully, comparing this to Jonestown is a stretch. There's a big difference between knowingly feeding your child poison and trying to do what you believe(rightly or wrongly) is the best for your child. The first is definitely wrong, the second one gets a little more fuzzy.
And if this is so important, then hey, lets not even give patients the option of choosing. Let's just say that once you are there, the doctor will make the decision, and thats that. Is that really what you want?
Junction Guy, I understand that you are not flaming, I respect your opinion. I'm not saying what happened is wrong, I just think its one of those slippery slope kind of issues. You can justify a lot of things once you say "its for the children."
And to your other question, I'm mostly atheist these days. And even if there is a god, I don't think s/he's a churchgoer either.
No Apologies
ethicist says b.c.
blood feud may save children and jehovah's witness parents.
published: thursday, february 1, 2007 | 8:46 pm et.
Scully,
How does what happened in Jonestown have anything to do with the question of who should decide what is in a child's best interest? You're totally grasping at straws with that analogy.
What if it was you in the NICU and your parents were refusing treatment for you? Would you want someone to say "Hey, wait a minute... what if the kid doesn't want to die?"
Why do we give patients and parents the right to refuse treatment in the first place? By your logic, then, the patients should all be forced to take whatever treatment a doctor orders. He's the doctor, he must know best, right?
No Apologies
ethicist says b.c.
blood feud may save children and jehovah's witness parents.
published: thursday, february 1, 2007 | 8:46 pm et.
Orby,
I'm not surprised by your reaction, I'm totally expecting for someone to come along and flame away at me for daring to question what happened in this case. "What about the children??? They are children!!!!"
Have you even bothered to check out the link I posted, of another instance where the government thought they knew best?
No Apologies
ethicist says b.c.
blood feud may save children and jehovah's witness parents.
published: thursday, february 1, 2007 | 8:46 pm et.
Besides the Canadian government "seized" legal control over the babies, thus permitting the doctors to perform tranfusions if needed. The babies were not whisked away in a physical sense.
You're splitting hairs here. The fact is the government in this case decided they knew better than the parents how to care for their children.
Maybe we should all turn over our children at birth to the government. They could set up facilities where children could all be raised in totally controlled conditions. Then no one would have to worry about them.
I think the real issue is, does the parents refusal of a medical process that they find abhorrent and that they feel could jeopardize their child's eternal welfare, is that abuse? And who should make that call? you? me? some judge?
No Apologies
ethicist says b.c.
blood feud may save children and jehovah's witness parents.
published: thursday, february 1, 2007 | 8:46 pm et.
Alright, I have been reading some of the posts about this case. Not all of them, because frankly, I think the topic has had waay more posts devoted to it than it warrants. I'm sorry, but babies are born every day, and thousands are born in critical medical circumstances. This is sad, but it is not news. The only part of this that is unusual, is that it happened to be sextuplets, and the JW angle.
And I am I the only person that finds the idea of the government seizing someone's children, just a little disturbing? Yes, I understand that there are some bad parents out there, and in some cases, it may get to the point that the government may need to step in. But I think in general, the idea that the government is more entitled to make these decisions than the parents is questionable. Here's an example, also from Canada: Dionne quintuplets.
No Apologies
i made the mistake of having a discussion about the "generation" understanding.
i stated that the 1994 wa was the latest change in that doctrine, abandoning the concept of 1914+70/80 year span of a generation=1994 max.
i was told by a practicing dub (a real kool-aid drinker) that there is a "new light" on this matter after the 1994 wa.
Tom,
Others here can probably give a more complete answers, but I'll throw in my 2cents, since I remember when this all went down, and it was a major factor in my exit:
I was told by a practicing dub (a real Kool-Aid drinker) that there is a "new light" on this matter after the 1994 WA. This modified understanding is that we are living in "the time of the end" and the "generation" now means all the people on earth that are alive at this "time of the end".
new light: yes, a major adjustment in their teaching on "this generation" was made, although I believe this all originated in a 1995 Watchtower not 1994; with some followup discussion in later years, I know definitely there was a major followup in 1997.
we are living in "the time of the end" this is not a change, they have taught this for decades.
The "generation" now means all the people on earth that are alive at this "time of the end". Basically yes, this is their "new light". Previously they taught that this generation referred to those people who witnessed the beginning of Christ's invisible presence in 1914, and would still be alive on earth when Armageddon came, for reals. What they did was disconnect "this generation" from the 1914, so that now its basically the generation that is present when Armageddon starts. Which basically makes it a useless statement: The generation that will see the end will be here to see the end. Well duh.
Despite the fact that this removes 1914 as an anchor point to try and determine just when the end will be here, the Watchtower insists that Armageddon is still very close, closer than ever! ever!!!! It's very very very close, really. Did we mention that the end is really really close???
In reality, I think a lot of witnesses, after hearing this new understanding, eventually realized what it boiled down to for them: the Watchtower is basically telling them- after years of proclaiming Millions Now Living Will Never Die, and You Can Live Forever in Paradise- that they can no longer assume the Big A will hit in their lifetime.
Hence, a general decline in most JW's activities since 1995, and more time being selfishly spent in recreation and trying to figure out how to manage without a retirement plan. And maybe getting an education.
No Apologies
the stars fall from heaven?
~sigh~ and youll fall across the finish line into the new world!
we dont want that brothers.
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!
No Apologies
