Refusal of blood products by adults is a choice. Refusing adequate care and subsequent death of children and babys is murder. So much for being pro life. (Yet another contradiction of this society).
Forced Blood Transfusion = Rape!
by Gill 29 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
greendawn
That's correct, how can they try to prevent those children from having life saving blood transfusions when they are not even JWs who had agreed to abide by their rules?
That's one of the most infuriating violations of common decency by the JWs. -
Atlantis
(Credit goes to BluesBrother/ThomasCovenant/compound complex/) How Can Blood Save Your Life--download Click the link below and when the next page appears click the words (Download file) on the right of your screen. http://uploadline.com/files/5859177/HowCanBloodSaveYourLife.pdf.html Watchtower-1991-June-15-pp.13-18 Entire article http://www.imagebam.com/image/556300358074 http://www.imagebam.com/image/3b0450358075 http://www.imagebam.com/image/3cc644358117 http://www.imagebam.com/image/8eccac358150 http://www.imagebam.com/image/a1a568358177 http://www.imagebam.com/image/3d9108358178 N.
-
Gill
Thank you everyone!
I can't begin to tell you how helpful this is but, I am under the impression that there is also something similar elsewhere, perhaps in the KMs!
As much information would be absolutely invaluable! As I said before, I would do this research my self, BUT NO LITERATURE anymore!
I know where I can get my hands on hard copies of everything but can't at the moment.
Thanks1
-
Paralipomenon
Really, it's a buzz word to drum up media support. It conjures up really powerful emotions in people that most news agencies don't use the word anymore. Rather than report an occurrence of rape, they use the term "sexual assault". The WT on the other hand has great success at drumming up support by using the term rape. On one hand, they are true in that a procedure is being administered without the consent of the patient, but it is very offensive to liken the two. A sexual rape only benefits the attacker, traumatizing the victim. A blood transfusion, while not consensual, still has the "victim's" interest at heart and likely will save their life. A low blow political move that I hope some lawyer for the hospitals and doctors nails them to the cross for. (legally, that is, otherwise they might need a transfusion)
-
Gill
Paralipomenon - This is exactly the point I am trying to make!
Does an ordinary non cult member feel they have been 'raped', or 'violated' when their life has been saved in a hospital with the use of a blood transfusion?
So why do JWs use this phrase and who exactly has such control over them that they all come out with this phrase?
By simply calling itself a 'religion' this book publishing company is able to abuse the trust of so many people that they actually believe they have been abused when they have been rescued from death.
The WTBTS uses this phrase because of the abhorence that the crime of rape brings up in the mind of normal everyday people and attempts to tar and feather the people who save those bleeding to death, the hospital staff, doctors and nurses.
-
ThomasCovenant
Hi Gill
Hopefully these are the ones you are thinking of.
Kingdom Ministry 1990 November Page 6
Are You Ready to Face a Faith-Challenging Medical Situation?
P36
'You must understand that in asking these questions, some are usually looking for a way around your refusal to accept blood. Do not inadvertently give it to them! So how would we avoid that misunderstanding? You could reply:
''If blood is forced on me in any way, it would be the same to me as being raped. I would suffer the emotional and spiritual consequences of that unwanted attack on me for the rest of my life. I would resist with all my strength such a violation of my body without my consent. I would make every effort to prosecute my attackers just as I would in a case of rape''
Kindom Ministry 1992 September page 6
Safeguarding your Children from Misuse of Blood.
'..................,and you can also make known to him [the judge] that you, as a Chrsitian parent, would view the use of another person's blood in an efort to sustain life as a serious violation of God's law and that forcing blood upon your child would be viewed as tantamount to rape. You and your child (if old enough to have his own convictions) can explain your abhorrence for such bodily invasion ............................'
I don't know about you, but as I'm typing these quotes out (I've got them already printed on paper which I keep in a file in the house so I'm having to manually type) that a serious misuse of blood is taking place.
MY BLOOD IS BOILING WITH ANGER!!!!!!!!!!
When my wife and I finally told our best friends of many years why I couldn't carry on with the 'truth' because of the trauma we suffered with the blood issue they said that with their own daughter it was no big deal because they would just let the courts take her off their hands and give her a blood transfusion. My friendship and respect for them built up over 25 years of holidaying and associating and working together went out the window for me at that moment. I knew I was dealing not with fellow human beings but with brick walls with a similar level of intelligence.
If they ( the Society) want to continue this likening/analogy to rape then the 'brothers' who say, as our former friends did, that they would gladly hand over their children to be 'saved' via a transfusion are effectively saying
'Please gang rape my child"
Thanks
Thomas Covenant
-
Scully
When we hear the word "rape", we know that someone is expressing feelings of violation of boundaries - whether those boundaries are sexual, ethical, moral or spiritual.
The point needs to be made that adults have the right to give consent on behalf of themselves, and the expectation in a reasonable society is that parents will make appropriate choices and not unreasonably withhold consent for necessary medical interventions on behalf of their children. A child does not have the ability to comprehend the concept of informed consent. A child cannot give consent or withhold it because under the law they do not have the capacity to understand the consequences of doing so. However, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ALL people have the fundamental right to LIFE. A child is not a "Jehovah's Witness child", but a "child of Jehovah's Witness parents". The parents have embraced an ideology, but the child is not a member of that belief system until they embrace it of their own volition.
Perhaps a counterpoint needs to be made in court that forcing a belief system's practices on minor non-members is a violation (ie, "rape") of their fundamental freedoms as well. A balance needs to be achieved where the child is granted the ability to LIVE long enough to accept the belief system's practices of their own volition.
The WTS is very cleverly trying to cover all possible outcomes in court so that JWs are always going to prevail on the basis of fundamental rights and freedoms. They argued that a JW teenager named Bethany Hughes, still a minor under the law, could make the decision to refuse blood transfusions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When a child is unable to make a decision of this nature, they argue that it is solely up to the parents to make that decision, even when the child's life is in peril, even when the child's fundamental right to life hangs in the balance. The Supreme Court of Canada has wisely decided that a minor child's right to life trumps a parent's freedom of worship. Nobody should have the right to sacrifice the life of another in the service of a belief system that the other person has not embraced.
-
ThomasCovenant
Thanks Scully
I thought I was completely over the anger I have felt with regard the blood issue but no. It comes back. Thankfully there are more level headed people here on this site than me who are able to look at these issues in a cooler way.
I am angry. Again
Thomas Covenant
-
Gill
Thank you ThomasCovenant for those quotes.
Scully - This is a real quandry for the judicial system, since nearly everywhere Religions appear to operate ABOVE and sometimes beyond the reach of law.
Policticians, Judges, lawyers etc are not yet willing to analyse any form of religious interpretation and consider it out and out wrong and are only at the beginning of understanding how 'religions' such as the WTBTS actually operate.
But when a religion begins to put a belief above the life of its members, surely questions need to be asked.
But then the quandry of how to judge which belief system is right and wrong.
There is something 'unusual happening' however, when people who are needing their lives saved with a blood transfusion are all screaming 'Rape!'
Who told them to say, think and even feel that?
Get to the bottom of that one, and you may yet find a nest of vipers...... at Brooklyn!