If stillbirths aren't resurrected, why is abortion banned? (page 2)

Elsewhere

I used to have a bumper sticker (before it faded out): Religion Stops a Thinking Mind.

I loved watching peoples' reaction in the rearview mirror.

1. They would point and laugh

or

2. They would stare at it with a scowl

I've never heard this that stillbirths are not resurrected. I believe you I've just never heard it. This cult is so f***** up. That's unbelievable. I have an aunt that miscarried at about 6 months along. This was about 35 years ago. She was still a JW at this time. If she was told this that may have been the point that she left the JWs. I know it was shortly after that miscarriage that she left. She still talks about that baby every time I see her.

mindmelda

I had a child, full term who was technically "still born" because she died of oxygen deprivation before birth.

I got so sick of this being bandied back and forth. Ugh. How not comforting to the bereaved. Why all the limping about on two different opinions?

She was "breathing" through me before she was born, and she was full term, what's to "reason" about? She could have lived on her own except that she was asphyxiated by an umbilical cord accident. It's equivalent to a person who drowns while diving because their oxygen tank apparatus fails.

Such gulping down of camels and straining out of gnats here.

FlyingHighNow

If you do research in the society's own publication, you will see that each baby gets "the breath of life" from Adam, indirectly through its parents.

They teach that babies who do not "breathe the breath of life" will not be resurrected. It's obvious they teach this to scare people into not having abortions. It's just another way they manipulate with their own, made up theology.

BabaYaga

Oh, Melda, I am so very sorry.

Trusting your own feelings on this is just another reason we can rejoice that we are out of the random dictates of the Watchtower.

mindmelda

Thank you, Baba.

Individually, the Witnesses were quite kind to me at the time and since about it. Doctrinally, though, this waffling always was offensive.

I like to think most of the "rank and file" are compassionate enough that this sort of doctrinal nitpicking who God favors the most and who he doesn't based on nothing much glides right past them.

I never paid attention to things like this. I figured it was someone who had too much time on their hands, like these people who make a whole movie with Peeps and post it on the internet. Except not nearly as entertaining and a whole lot more harmful!

Intellectual games for the dispassionate elite to play, that's all it is. Since none of them are women, they probably never had to confront the reality of this situation, so what did it matter to them?

Did I mention that I find the WTS extremely misogynistic on most issues? *G*

Scarred for life

Did I mention that I find the WTS extremely misogynistic on most issues? *G*

That's a huge understatement.

aSphereisnotaCircle

She was "breathing" through me before she was born,

The Society sees a blood transfusion as being equal to eating blood.

However taking oxygen through your nose is not the same as taking oxygen through an umbilical cord.

Their nothing but legalistic cold-hearted idiots.

I knew three sisters who lost full term babies, my heart goes out to every one ot them. It just enrages me to think how carelessly the Society would banter about this legalistic nonsense.

mindmelda

I was just writing a blog about how misogynistic concepts, many of them unfortunately perpetrated through religion, endanger societies as a whole.

It's been said that you can judge a society or a culture by how it treats women and children, the more misogynistic it is, the less freedom and rights for EVERYONE.

Try as they might to make their definition of headship a beneficient one, I've seen just the opposite among Witnesses far too often. For the man who truly wants to use this "cover"as an excuse to be abusive, it works wonderfully as a situation where victims are blamed for their abuse because they fail to be submissive.

Insisting on these literal intepretations of biblical stories and events that seem to me to be metaphorical is part of the problem. The Biblical customs of veiling and such were peculiar to those times, when men did have to protect their women and children from other men who mainly saw them as possessions, chattel, livestock.

I think we've progressed enough legally and socially (although it's far from perfect) that we don't have to worry about that so much anymore and observe outmoded social customs from a long gone era.

But yes, it's cold blooded to nit pick over who legalistically qualifies for God's love and mercy and who doesn't. I've always trusted God's mercy more than that of humans. It smacks of the Pharisees.

WTWizard

Why do they continually create problems like this where none needed to exist? The logical answer is that an embryo is not capable of thinking in the sense of planning for the future or knowing that actions now have consequences in the future, and therefore is not "conscious". But it is a value to its mother, and hence, science might be able to resurrect it or undo whatever birth defects it had to make it die in the womb if the mother so desires.

It's just the continual indecisiveness, combined with the fact that they insist that everyone go by and teach the material from the Filthful and Disgraceful Slavebugger, that creates the problems. Let people think for themselves, let them come up with their own answers and whys, and there would be no problem. Force people to believe what you believe under death threat, and there is a big problem.

If stillbirths aren't resurrected, why is abortion banned?

Share this