Shropshire Star news editor examines issues behind death of JW Emma Gough

by AndersonsInfo 85 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Quandry
    Quandry

    My personal belief is that these kids are not going with out a family, just a loving mother. Again it's the mother's choice, I see it no differantly then a mother giving a child up for adoption if she can not take care of it. Accept in this case the mother is choosing to not accept special treatment.

    I think we should ease up on Burger Time. He is a twenty-five year old male. He is looking through the eyes of one who has a mother and is completely detached from the situation. He could not know the fierce love a mother will display for her children. He has not in his young years seen the anguish of children with no mother. I work in an elementary school and know and mentor motherless children. It is different even from fatherless children.

    I am fifty-six and just lost my mother in death last week. I will never be able to call out to my mother again. I also have a daughter, and know that I would die for her at any moment, and fight to live to be there for her at the same time.

    There is a deep sadness within me to think that this young woman did not fight for her future, and take the consequences of her "disobedient" action later. These children, yes, may have a family, but will never be able to feel a mother's special love. When they enter the first day of school, when they graduate from High School, when they marry, have the first grandchild, etc. there will be no proud mother standing by with the look of love that only a mother can display.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou

    I'm with Besty on this one. Commented on it a few months ago but clearly it's a tricky issue. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/145920/2638528/post.ashx#2638528

    I have read that the Irish government are considering changes in legislation that would even force transfusions on an unwilling adult mother of small children or babies (like Emma Gough) on the grounds that the childs right to have a mother takes precedence over the mothers right to refuse treatment.

    The world is starting to wake up to the fact that religious beliefs need not necessarily be due automatic respect.

    Look at this way. Does any parent have the right to deny their children an education or suitable shelter or regular meals? And if such denials were founded on religious belief would that make the parental position stronger or weaker?

    Why should a child have more legislation protecting his schooling than protecting his right to his Mother?

  • besty
    besty

    Scotsman. Xena, Blues Brother:

    I agree this is a tricky issue, but imagine trying to work it out if religion didn't exist. I'm with Christopher Hitchens when he says religion poisons everything, and to me Emma Gough's children being without a mother is a tragically typical example.

    However religion does exist, for better or for worse, and so we have to make simple situations into complex ones. Again the question is:

    Does the mothers right to do what the hell she wants with her body because its hers, supercede the right of the newborn child to their natural mother?

    I don't believe it does - in the modern age of emancipation for all, responsibilities to others tend to come a sorry second place.

  • one of 12
    one of 12

    Thanks fifi40

    one of 12

  • johnny cip
    johnny cip

    I'm with Besty; on this one. Mrs. emma gough DIED THANKS TO THE WTBTS, IT WAS THE WTBTS THAT BRAINWASHED HER TO DIE... nOT HER OWN CONSCIENCENCE. I'M 100% AGAINST many posters that try to say EMMA GOUGH made her own choice. THE WTS MADE HER CHOICE. AFTER YEARS OF BRAINWASHING. NOW SHE'S DEAD THANKS TO THE WTS. I DON'T SEE ANYWAY POSTERS HERE CAN DEFEND HER DEATH. BASED ON WTS DOCTRINE/ OR CHOICE OF TREATMENT. we have many sick posters here that try to defend Emma Gouchs' religious STUPIDITY TO DIE.

  • steve2
    steve2

    The blatant hypocrisy of the Watchtower in allowing witnesses the freedom of conscience to take Factor VIII, the clotting agent derived from the donated blood of numerous donors:

    Allowed to use it, but not allowed to donate the product - blood - from which it is derived. Disgusting hypocrisy.

  • MidwichCuckoo
    MidwichCuckoo

    Just a reminder - in the wake of Emma Gough's death last October, Paul Gillies appeared on morning TV (here in UK) live defending her decision. He stated that it was solely Emma's decision, as an adult, to refuse blood...and that 'we only Baptise as adults' (and we all know THAT'S a lie - but something maybe Joe Public would believe). I wonder how old Emma Gough was when she was baptised...?

  • scotsman
    scotsman

    Besty

    Does the mothers right to do what the hell she wants with her body because its hers, supercede the right of the newborn child to their natural mother?

    I would still state yes. I believe that the mother's right to control over her own body supercedes the child's right to life, something more grave than the right to a natural mother. I would find it hard to accept your argument and still be pro-choice...

  • besty
    besty
    I would find it hard to accept your argument and still be pro-choice...

    LOL two hardened Scotsmen fighting over the wains right to a Maw :-)

    I'm not sure you can reduce this to choice/life. Remember this was a post-partum decision on the part of Emma G. Looking at their wedding photo all I can see is hope and optimism. So sad.

    When you hold your own children and internalize their vulnerability and dependence on you, everything changes. And you would do anything to ensure their survival. That makes Emma's decision so incomprehesible to those without a cult mindset.

    Introducing choice/life is for another thread.

    Paul <of the champagne in Vegas class>

  • scotsman
    scotsman

    lol

    I agree with what you say on an emotional level, but not on an ethical one. We're discuss the individual's right to control over their own body and in that contect the abortion question is relevant. And the "right to a mother" isn't a UNESCO article although you could possibly say it is covered in article 3 (Best interests of child). Not allowing the choice to refuse specific medical treatment because you can't comprehend the mindset and because of the hope & optimism in a wedding photo are not sound legal grounds, but they might be champagne grounds!

    Christopher Hitchens is a beautiful writer but I wouldn't want to live in his world. Removing religion from the equation wouldn't automatically result in a peachy world as the impetus to control and dominate is intrinsic to humanity and science an alternative tool to be used to that end instead of religion.

    I'm with John Gray on Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennet.http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit