Posted on 10/06/2011 5:00:29 AM PDT by Cronos
The High Court has made an order allowing the Coombe Hospital to carry out an emergency blood transfusion on a baby girl born prematurely last week.
Her parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses and object to the procedure on religious grounds.
.. The baby girl does not at present a require a blood transfusion as she is not at immediate risk.
The child who weighs just under 1 kilogram was born last week 3 months prematurely.
Counsel Eileen Barrington for the hospital said there is a fear the girl may develop an infection.
In this situation a blood transfusion could be a life-saving procedure.
This goes against the religious beliefs of the parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses.
..Judge Patrick McCarthy has given the hospital permission to carry out the procedure.
But he has also given the child’s parents permission to return to court to apply for the ruling to be changed in circumstances where the situation of their daughter improves and the risks diminish.
(Excerpt) Read more at newstalk.ie ...
What kind of monsters are these?
I wonder what their reason is for being against blood transfusions?
So a question for Mitt is if he would accept blood transfusions if as President he needed them in a life saving situation.
The Freerepublic Jehovah's Witnesses can answer that
cyc -- any biblical reasoning for this?
I looked up the answer on the JW website. It states that they follow Acts 15;20 and Acts 21;25 that essentially states “Christians must abstain from blood”. From the article, I got the impression the belief is that only God gives blood and man cannot. They do accept blood alternatives.
What is strange is that those verses also say to refrain from eating the fat of animals and I don’t see any Jehovah’s Witnesses doing that!
That sort of surprised me as well. From the few articles I read, they can eat meat that has the blood properly drained from it. Thus, they wouldn’t eat something like blood pudding or blood sausage. For years, I thought they refrained from transfusions because they interpreted it as a mild form of cannibalism. They weren’t eating flesh but their body would “consume” another person’s blood. Now.... I wonder how they interpret the Last Supper. That is, when Jesus says “take this.. this is my body. Drink this.. this is my blood”.
Well, they have their own mis-translation of the bible which they quote from and that has distorted the Word of God considerably, so they may have edited it out. They also believe that Jesus Christ is just the Archangel Michael, not God.
The question here is - Is their a right to let your kid die based on religious or personal belief reasons?
There is a right to every individual being to life. That’s what abortion and euthenasia deny.
Is there a right to death? There is a right to not prolong life into the absurd. But this country has not legislatively decided nationally if there is a right to death for “you and yours”.
That’s the abortion/euthenasia question that still goes floundering along, ending at least over a million lives early - millions if birth control is included (you know, lets the fertilized egg not attach to mom).
In the mean time - would a God forgive someone for choosing to continue life in a “corrupted/polluted” way, or is death preferable, religiously speaking? The parents prefer the latter.
Using aborted baby stem cells to cure sick people is something I would refuse on my child, me. This is not a corruption or pollution issue, as adult stem cells would be OK, but a “Fifth Commandment” issue, supporting someone’s death that wasn’t otherwise harming me.
If someone believes that Jesus was the Archangel Michael (and not the Son of God) then they aren’t Christians at all. I have always heard JW were Christians and that wouldn’t be the case. IMHO
Boffo posts, cronos, give us more! But still no pearls for you.
My brother in law is a JW. When his daughter was born he was in the delivery room. His was that in the event of a transfusion attempt he would prevent it. I was horrified. The JW misinterpretation of the bible is not just silly it gets people killed.
I don't know what they believe. I am sure that any fair definition offered by a non-Jehovas Witness would be incorrect, especially if started with "monsters".
Here is what I do know:
I had a good friend, and co-worker in Hawaii that was a Jehovas Witness. A kinder, and more gentle man I have never encountered. He was quite literally honest to a fault. He was ridiculed & tormented daily(sort of the flavor pushed by this thread). He met each slight, slur, and insult with a smile and kindness.
As a living example, he was by far the most Christian person I have ever known.
YOU can’t give what YOU don’t have.
-- why? Are questions about Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs out of bounds? Is your belief system out of bounds while you can question others?
The good actions of one member of the Jehovah's Witness group does not mean that their doctrine is Christian.
I was posing a theological question.. not a statement about an individual. If it is true that a person doesn’t think that Jesus was the Son of God... that religion is not Christian. No different than someone of the Jewish faith (who believe Jesus existed and was a prophet just not the Son of God). I am glad you made a great friend. He sounds like a wonderful person... if I only had friends that belonged to my specific faith, I would only have a handful of them. Instead, I have a large group of friends (Jewish, Wiccan, Agnostic etc). Each person is a good friend to me in different ways and I love each of them.
Why? Why not? You can ask anyone anything you wish, can’t you now?
But since I speak only for myself that’s the only person I can answer for.....despite your attempts to provoke otherwise.
So then answer — do you believe that Jesus Christ is God, part of the One God with the Father and the Holy Spirit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.