MCLEANS SEXTUPLETS AND BLOOD ARTICLE - SCANNED COPY FOR YOU (page 2)

skeeter1

This is HUGE! While I could not read some of the scans, it looks really good. Is there any way to get some hard copies of this?

The magazine used the Awake picture. That's going to show the WTS for the sickos they really are. Plus, it looks like it tells our story.

I wonder if the WTS is going to try to sue Macleans for copyright violation. That would really piss off the media.

Skeeter

The truth shall set you free? Update Editorial on Biblical scholar ...
DigitalJournal.com, Canada - 2 hours ago
Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their ...

High rank article quickie easy register to post your commentsJW Trolls are trashing it

kwintestal

Here are some print quality images should you wish to have a hard copy. I subscribe to Macleans but for some reason they didn't send me this one, I called and they're resending it.

Kwin

alt

hawkaw

Thanks for your help kwinestal.

I have also sent high quality reoslution copies to Lee Elder, Barb Anderson and Randy at Free Minds. So by the time this is done we should have this set up for everyone.

skeeter1

Here's the other editorial article in full.

*******************
The truth shall set you free? Update Editorial on Biblical scholar says Jehovah's Witnesses wrong about blood transfusions

Posted 13 hours ago by Critical_Conformity in Religion and viewed 328 times

Is it ok to place the lives of children into the mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it ok to give parents, like the parents of this story, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based religious interpretations? Full story: digitaljournal.com The first case of sextuplets born in Canada occurred in Vancouver on Jan. 6 to Jehovah’s Witness parents has caused a great debate here on DJ with the thread still going..... My personal email fills daily on just one article posting. I am here now with a promised fulfilled on a update to this story, an editorial on Feedback. As I am remaining neutral on this subject this is a summary of the story with feedback.

The Vancouver babies were premature and needed blood transfusions to cope with low volumes of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children.

The care of the babies presents an ethical dilemma for the doctors. Medical authorities do not generally have the authority to overrule the parents’ wishes. However, when a child is in danger of dying, the doctors can lodge a complaint with government authorities that can get a court order to enforce treatment.

Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?

Here we have a conundrum. The same religious authorities who would champion the rights of the unborn and turn every stone to prevent a woman’s right to choose will not go out on a limb for the born, preferring to leave the matter to the courts.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada cites three main principles at stake — the rights of parents, respect for religious beliefs and protection of children. In the unborn debate, protection of the unborn is paramount. After the child is born, protection comes after parental and religious rights.

There is an ethical assumption parents should have care and custody of their children because parents love their children and strive to help them to become honourable human beings. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. If parents are abusing children, society intervenes to protect the children. The question is: who needs protection more than a child who will die if medical treatment is not administered?

The argument is reduced to: are children individuals with human rights? It seems the only way to protect all children is to make the ethical assumption parents do not own their children. Parents are guardians charged with the task of helping their children to grow physically and emotionally. Life-and-death decisions regarding children should not take into consideration the religious beliefs of the parents.

Parents have rights, but they are not absolute. Outside religious rules, parents can’t make decisions that have the potential to harm their children. Children are regularly taken away from their parents when they’re deemed to be at risk. Thus, while society may accept parents are free to become martyrs, they are not free, in indistinguishable circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.

That parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children is especially relevant in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is because their teachings have changed radically, over the years, with regard to medical treatment.

As well as whole blood, the Watchtower Society used to prohibit taking into the body any of the components that make up whole blood. Over time, while sticking to the banning of whole blood, they have gradually permitted the use of virtually all the components that make up whole blood.

They first sanctioned globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June 2000. According to the Watchtower, June 15, 2000, Questions From Readers, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its primary components are allowed in medical treatment.

Religious authorities often view new technologies with suspicion. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s many religious communities objected to vaccinations. Vaccinations were denounced as harmful and morally wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses saw vaccination as a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (the Golden Age, precursor to the Awake, Feb. 4, 1931).

Between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower Society and others held a dim view of organ transplants.
Major religions, including Catholicism, Judaism and Islam, issued warnings against transplants. Some religions objected because the procedure involved cutting an organ from a living body. Others, like the Witnesses, viewed transplants as an extension of cannibalism (the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967).

In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants a matter for personal decision, accepting the procedure as one that saves lives. Until the rules were relaxed, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a corneal transplant and death rather than a kidney transplant.

Some branches of the Jewish and Muslim faiths continue to voice concerns over the rapid advance of medical research. However, religious thinkers have been forced to consider scientific technology when dealing with theological issues. Questions relating to stem-cell research, fertility, contraception and abortion remain the focus of religious debates.

There is no doubt society is conflicted over religious truths. Yet, even the most dogmatic views evolve. Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time?

Rate this news

10

1

Choose a reason


		1

You have rated this article.

Email

Report

Print

Email this article	Recipient email:
	Your email: optional
	Message: optional

</form>

Comments

Voters

3 subscribers

Subscribe To This Thread [?] : </form>

+4	Posted 12 hours ago by gohomelaker

I still believe that what the hospital did was right. They may have gone about it in a rather cowardly way, i.e., doing on a weekend when the parents had no recourse to fight them in the courts, but I do believe that the hospital had the children's best interest at heart. I understand that the parents have very strict religious convictions, but the children were born in an extremely tenuous situation and absolutely needed the blood for survival. So, that is what the hospital did. The child's right to live far outwieghs the parents religious beliefs. quote {user(1594)}

# 1

+4	Posted 12 hours ago by cgull

Nice article Critical, well done thorough and detail. The doctor knows what is best for the child, and do so accordingly. If the parent insists on their religion and gets the child killed, you know what they don't deserve that child. God will give them a new life under an understanding parents. Just follow the heart and truth, here it clearly says save the child first, and when you think of their reasoning it doesn't sound sensible nor true. quote {user(1705)}

# 2

+4	Posted 11 hours ago by gohomelaker

Stuart, just stop. You are just continuing on the same bullshit stuff as in the other thread. It is not necessary for you to carry on with your cut and pasting of JW literature like this all over again. You are serving no one's purpose by doing this other than to totally annoy people, once again. Please just stop. quote {user(1594)}

# 3

+2	Posted 11 hours ago by DannyHaszard

DEADLY DOGMA
The real deal on why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses have a non negotiable doctrine of their belief system to reject blood products.

The origin of this dogma comes from their founding father Joseph Rutherford in the early 20th century.The consumption (eating) of blood was strictly forbidden under old testament kosher law.

The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses saw fit to extend this prohibition over to their belief system.
They thought that the "end of the world" was coming back then (ca.1940) so there would never be much causality.

It is well into the 21st century,with the "end of the world" on hold,the Watchtower leaders have blood on their hands,with the deaths of innocent minor children.

Many children have died since rejecting life saving blood transfusions.Why do they maintain adherence to this archaic creed at all cost?
Answer:The man-made Watchtower cult is run by lawyers who know they would be sued out of existence for wrongful death suits,if they dared to outright repeal the bogus no blood ruling now.

UPDATE:The absurdity of the Watchtower rulings now allow any of the COMPONENTS of blood to be transfused, but not whole blood, and yet people are dying and lives and families are being ruined over a few old men who are always changing their minds on this matter.

Some educational links provided below:

http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site

http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htmWill you die for a lie?

(Jehovah's Witnesses do use many products that are derived from blood banks (so called blood 'fractions') but they themselves won't donate a drop)

--------
Danny Haszard-lifelong 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness http://www.freeminds.org quote -tell the truth don't be afraid- {user(3169)}

# 4

+2	Posted 11 hours ago by DannyHaszard

Watchtower gospel of gobbledygook

The blood transfusion issue is still a hot item, even though the Watchtower has practically allowed all 'parts' of the blood individually, just not together!
Doesn't the Bible clearly state to "pour ALL the blood onto the ground and cover it with dust because to Jehovah the life blood belongs"?

So, how can the Watchtower leaders allow most of the parts of blood which they euphemistically call "blood fractions" YET forbid "whole blood"?
Isn't it all sacred to Jehovah,or is this a legal ruse to keep from being sued?

(I will be cursed by God for eating a whole ham sandwich but if I eat the bun,mayo,mustard,cheese,ham,pickle separately it's o-kay today.)
Remember thousands of devout obedient Jehovah's Witnesses have DIED for this blood stance.
The entire doctrine is senseless and deadly.

The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions. They didn't exist when the Old Testament and Acts were written. The Bible passages in question (kosher law) have to do with diet. Neither the Jews nor other groups oppose blood transfusions because they don't try to put a spin on something that isn't there. If the Watchtower had not issued this prohibition, no Jehovah's Witness would oppose them on Biblical grounds.

Go to Israel and try and find a super observant Orthodox Jew or Rabbi who believes that blood transfusions are against God's Law given to Moses.You can't.

acsot

hawkaw, if Barb or anyone else needs the magazine for research or as "ammo" I can mail them my copy, or mail it to you and you can redirect it to whomever.

Any member of the general public who reads that article should be well-armed next time a dub knocks at their door!

hawkaw

Thanks!

I have many copies and have sent or are sending them to certain people who have put in a request including Barb who BTW wanted .... three .... for crying outloud. The nerve of that woman ... LOL.

I must say after reading this this FIVE page, pictures with BIG cover article five times I have concluded this is just devastating to the WTS. This will really provide a good vaccination to the general public who read it.

hawk.

acsot

I just hope more posters on this board read it as well!

Lady Lee

candidlynuts

this is a canadian publication? thanks for the scans!

MCLEANS is our smaller but still important version of TIME. It often shows up in doctor's offices (I love that) as well as many other waiting rooms across the country. (dentist, business, etc) I can't wait to see that sitting in my doctor's office

MCLEANS SEXTUPLETS AND BLOOD ARTICLE - SCANNED COPY FOR YOU

Email this article

Share this