Pregnant women refuses blood

by Giordano 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JW GoneBad

  Marvin Shilmer: 'More than 50,000 dead, AND COUNTING!!!

  The NO-BLOOD policy is another monster that the WTBTS has created and only the GB can make it go away! But the question is...will they? Little likelihood because there is too much embarrassment, shame, pride and loss of $$$$ at stake!

  The death of this mother and her child is the price they paid due to the WTBTS' going 'beyond the things that are written'. (1Cor 4:6)

  When you intentionally and deliberately cause the death of someone (in this case 2 persons and 50,000+ others) then the law of 'tooth for tooth, eye for eye and life for life' applies. This poster wonders... 'when will God act and deliver the death-blow to this bitch and harlot the WTBTS'?
• 

  sparrowdown

  The WT's cruel policies kill - it's as simple as that.
• 

  jwfacts

  'Most mothers would make decisions in favour of the unborn baby and this was a decision that was not in favour of the unborn baby.'

  It is a terrible witness, as the above comment shows. The sad thing is that under JW doctrine, the baby does not get a resurrection, as it died unborn. So the mother did not make decisions, possibly unknowingly, in favour of the child in either this life or the next according to her own resurrection belief.
• 

  Phizzy

  The more I read about this JW religion, the more disgusted I become.

  The J W Religion is Evil.
• 

  The Searcher

  The fact remains that mothers who deliberately abort their children are exercising their "human rights", but Witness mothers must be vilified if their child dies, allegedly as the result of the rejection of a particular surgical procedure! One standard for all?

  jwfacts said - "The sad thing is that under JW doctrine, the baby does not get a resurrection, as it died unborn "

  Any references for this? I've no recollection of such a teaching.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  searcher: The fact remains that mothers who deliberately abort their children are exercising their "human rights", but Witness mothers must be vilified if their child dies, allegedly as the result of the rejection of a particular surgical procedure! One standard for all?

  I am not sure exactly why your comparison of a JW woman committing suicide to a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy is unsettling but I want to comment on your position because I know that you are somewhat off the mark on this one.

  I think it would be more applicable to compare this JW woman to women who choose to take their own life and take their children with them to their death, than to women who chose to live.

  This is not a debate on abortion issues - it is a discussion on women who commit suicide and put their child(ren)'s lives at risk by taking that action. A woman who chooses not to be pregnant doesn't do so out of a desire to die. In fact, women who terminate their pregnancies have a desire to live - that is why they choose to not be pregnant. This JW woman desired to die.
• 

  sparrowdown

  Her "experience" will more than likely do the rounds of the circuit and coventions, her family will be interviewed

  and she will be posthumously praised for her courage and love for Jehovah.

  The same Jehovah who hates child sacrifice....apparently. 😟
• 

  OrphanCrow

  sparrowdown:
  The same Jehovah who hates child sacrifice....apparently.

  Jehovah doesn't hate child sacrifice. He endorses it - he gave his own son in sacrifice...apparently.
• 

  sparrowdown

  OC - you do realize I was being sarcastic? I hate their stinking blood policies as much as the next person.
• 

  JW GoneBad

  What must of been on the mother's mind when deciding not to take a blood transfusion? Was the mother perhaps in fear of consequences and repercussions?

  What would have been the outcome if the mother had allowed a blood transfusion for herself which would have meant life for herself and her baby? An article in jwsurvey.org points out that the WTBTS directs the elders of this mothers' congregation to hold a Kangaroo Court and take the following action (Shepherd The Flock book pages 111,112):

  “Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood. If some willingly takes blood, perhaps because of being under extreme pressure, the committee should obtain the facts and determine the individual’s attitude. If he is repentant, the committee would provide spiritual assistance in the spirit of Galatians 6:1 and Jude 22, 23. Since he is spiritually weak, he would not qualify for special privileges for a period of time, and it may be necessary to remove certain basic privileges. Depending on the circumstances, the committee may also need to arrange for an announcement to the congregation: “The elders have handled the matter having to do with [name of person]. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance.” On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant, they should announce his disassociation.”