JWs and Vasectomies?

by sweetone2377 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Scully

  Granted, their decision would be particularly telling if there were confirmed medical assurances that mother or child faced grave medical risks, even a probability of death, with a future pregnancy. Some in that situation have reluctantly submitted to a sterilization procedure as described earlier to make sure that no pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother (who may already have other children) or that of a child who might later be born with a life-threatening health problem.

  It's ok for "the mother (who may already have other children)" to have her tubes tied if future pregnancies endanger her health sufficiently, however, if this same "mother (who may already have other children)" has complications during childbirth and was bleeding to death, the JWs would want her to refuse a blood transfusion.

  PATHETIC!

  Another law that might seem relevant said that no man whose genitals were severely damaged could come into God’s congregation. (Deuteronomy 23:1)

  This statement is also a joke, considering most elders have no balls.

  Love, Scully

  
  
• 

  jaded

  LMAO at Scully. Always tells it like it is. Gotta love it!
• 

  teenyuck

  Thanks for the post zev...

  I have two questions:

  1. What the heck is a brother-in-law marriage? Am I correct in thinking that the bro-in-law was to marry the widow and have a kid? What if he were already married? What happened to wife #1?

  God’s Law to Israel contained indications of his regard for human procreation. For example, if a married man died before producing a son to carry on his lineage, his brother was to father a son by brother-in-law marriage. (Deuteronomy 25:5)

  2. So, her husband is getting the crap beat out of him and to help she grabs the opponents "privates" and saves herself and her hubby. Her hand should be amputated?! WTF!!! This is so stupid, it is funny! However, now that I think about it, what guy wants to admit his wife kicked the other guy's ass? Though on the other hand (pun intended), everyone would know because her hand was cut off. Unless neither spills the beans! And, what real man wants the world to know a woman brought him down by grabbing his sac?

  More to the point was the law about a wife who tried to help her husband in a fight. If she grasped the privates of her husband’s opponent, her hand was to be amputated; significantly, God did not require eye-for-eye damage to her or her husband’s reproductive organs. (Deuteronomy 25:11, 12) This law would clearly engender respect for reproductive organs; these were not to be destroyed needlessly.

  I have one more issue....why are JW's so concerned about what other people know about their personal lives?

  The Questions From Readers seem to bring up issues that normal, functioning adults could figure out for themselves.

  I thought Ann Landers had some very personal questions...the JW's beat old Ann by a long shot!
• 

  Pete2

  More to the point was the law about a wife who tried to help her husband in a fight. If she grasped the privates of her husband’s opponent, her hand was to be amputated....

  Gee-whiz ... that'll teach her! What happened if she brushed against his scrotum? Would she lose a finger? (This is definitely barbaric!)
• 

  AlanF

  The 1999 WT article is a fine example of how the Society "says without saying" and so gets around accusations that it interferes with private matters. The article nowhere explicitly states that having a vasectomy or tubal ligation is forbidden, or that it is a disfellowshippable offense. But the language about reflecting "mature sensitivity to Scriptural indications" followed by the question "what if it became publicly known that a Christian blithely disregarded God's evaluations?" is a sure indicator to JWs that the procedure is forbidden. Using standard JW-speak, the Society here actually instructs JWs how to view someone who has the procedure: "Would not others doubt whether he (or, she) was a good example, having a reputation of making decisions in harmony with the Bible? Such a disturbing blemish on one's reputation could, of course, affect a minister's being qualified for special privileges of service." Of course, the only reason such a "disturbing blemish" would exist is that the Society has here instructed JWs that the procedure must produce a blemished reputation!

  It's the same kind of disgusting underhandedness that the Society practiced with regard to college attendance and alternative military service. They never stated outright in any publication that either was wrong. But all JWs knew perfectly well that attending college would result in a "disturbing blemish" on their reputation and that young men who went would rarely receive "privileges of service", and so at the Society's insistence all college goers were looked down upon. And those who contemplated alternative military service were privately instructed that doing so was a disfellowshippable offense. The only reason this was not put into published literature was to prevent governments from being able to point to a printed prohibition, which in many countries is viewed as sedition.

  AlanF
• 

  sweetone2377

  Thank you zev for posting that article. Up untill last night I had no idea how the WTS felt about such procedures. My nother had her tubes tied after my baby sister was born. But at the same time, the elders in my old cong kept a tight leash on their wives and tubals were not an option for them (although being on the pill for 20+ years can have a major negative effect on a woman's reproducing ability).

  Shelly
  Former victim and recovering wonderfully from a broken spirit
  Smile, because we all have been freed from slavery!!
• 

  AlanF

  Puffsrule, the practice of brother-in-law (aka levirate) marriage was common in the ancient Middle East. It apparently existed even before the time of Abraham (of course, assuming that he even existed). The infamous account of Onan in Genesis is one illustration. Onan was a son of Judah. His brother died and Judah told Onan to get the widow pregnant and "preserve offspring for your brother". The resulting child would bear the name of the dead brother and continue his line of descent. For unspecified reasons, Onan withdrew before climaxing and "wasted his semen on the ground". God then killed him.

  The Jews incorporated brother-in-law marriage into the Mosaic Law. Again, according to the ancient custom, a man who refused would be highly looked down upon in the Jewish community.

  The practice was rather interesting from the standpoint of adultery. Normally Christians define adultery as "any sexual activity by a married person with a person not his or her mate". But with brother-in-law marriage a married man was obligated to have sex with his dead brother's widow, which Christians think of as adultery. This illustrates the little-known fact that in patriarchal times and under the Law, a married man committed adultery only when he had sex with another man's wife, whereas a married woman committed adultery when she had sex with any other man at all, married or not. The reason for this was simple: the woman was viewed as a special kind of property, and so adultery on the part of a man was nothing more than his "stealing" the property of a man. But the "female property" was viewed as giving what was not hers to another man. Thus, a married man who fornicated with an unmarried woman was not viewed as having committed adultery, whereas a married woman who fornicated with an unmarried man was stoned to death. That helps to explain why, in the account of Judah and Tamar, Judah got off scot free, whereas he called for the death of Tamar who had "prostituted herself".

  AlanF
• 

  dungbeetle

  The short answer to “Is surgical sterilization okay?” (by The Watchtower Society)

  1999…NO
  1996…YES
  1985…YES
  1975…SOMETIMES
  1969…NO
  1961…NO

  The long answers…

  WT 6/15/99
  Questions From Readers. Since sterilization procedures are now said to be reversible on request, might a Christian view them as a birth-control option?
  …. is unrealistic to treat male or female sterilization lightly, as if it were temporary birth control. And for the sincere Christian, there are other aspects to consider. A central point is that reproductive powers are a gift from our Creator. His original purpose included procreation by perfect humans, who would “fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28) After the Flood cut earth’s population to eight, God repeated those basic instructions. ..God’s Law to Israel contained indications of his regard for human procreation…This law would clearly engender respect for reproductive organs; these were not to be destroyed needlessly…what if it became publicly known that a Christian blithely disregarded God’s evaluations? Would not others doubt whether he (or, she) was a good example, having a reputation of making decisions in harmony with the Bible? Such a disturbing blemish on one’s reputation could, of course, affect a minister’s being qualified for special privileges of service, though that might not be so if one had in ignorance had this procedure performed.—1 Timothy 3:7
• 

  teenyuck

  Thanks AlanF...That is incredible. I knew women were property, however, this custom I had never heard of.

  I am sure we read it in Genesis, however, it was so long ago...

  Thanks also for your explanation on how JW's twist the words. This is a great way to show that they may not "say" it, however, the point is made. There are so many examples of this twisting.
• 

  SYN

  Be careful, oh Dubs! Having your tubes tied might mean you're not allowed to carry around microphones or destroy people's lives by sitting on Judicial Committees! Oh, the humanity!

  Seven006: "Have you tried drugs? Shooting up a little heroin might do the trick, it's hard to type when your stoned out of your mind. I don't know how TR does it!"