You again cannot admit to yourself that you support a group that requires the needless death of children as well as supporting the protection of child rapists like Fitzwater and ensuring that Witnesses like Fitzwater stay in good standing.
Answer these questions Fred.
With the evidence that has been presented, do you support Fitzwater staying as a Witness in good standing and WILL you write to the society asking for him to be disfellowshipped?
hawk
p.s. - I see you need practice in using Simon's new and improved db. If I may suggest - don't hit the "enter" key twice.
I don't give a rat's ass what Fritzwater said. It come a time that a person needs to defend itself of what they believe. That is, I don't defend child molesters and I want the best treatment for a patient who is a hospital.
So seeing "Mia's" only treatment option is too have numerous "whole blood transfusions" due to the chemotherapy, would you support her and ensure she was not disassociated?
If you don't defend child molesters does that mean you want to see Fitzwater disfellowshipped and you WILL write the society and tell them to disfellowship him much like what his family wanted?
Thank you for posting this news. I am grateful that the case has been postponed, allowing "Mia" to get the needed treatments. As the others do, I hope the treatment is successful and that Lawrence's sacrifice becomes understood and appreciated.
Hawk,
Thanks for reminding us that it's not over yet.
Folks,
Don't forget Shunned Father when you're figuring your July budgets!!!!
Ahhh Fred another argument shift. Your lack of an answer tells me the story. But why don't you tell the rest of us.
So .....to make it easier for you let's assume Mia wants the ONLY treatment available of having numerous "whole blood transfusions" due to the chemotherapy. Would you support her and ensure she was not disassociated?
And again, if you don't defend child molesters does that mean you want to see Fitzwater disfellowshipped and you WILL write the society and tell them to disfellowship him much like what his family wanted?
Come on Fred, for once in your life look at the computer screen/mirror and HONESTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH type in the FULL not partial answer to the questions.
Fred...its a shame you have to name call when you see people with different opinions. You sure wouldn't influence any neutrals! Come on......you have God's spirit, Jehovah the god of the universe and more, anointed dudes, Jesus who reigns as King, elders that are in Jesus 'right hand', Faithful and Discrete slave, Governing Body......loads of directors of WTS corporations...against..l'il ole us. You can do better than throw your toys out of your cot, surely????
Thanks for bring us the information, Alan - a lot of people here have been reading and sending checks. I'm glad the court gave the girl & her father a reprive - hope her body can heal in a type of peace now.
There may be a lot more going on here than meets the eye. It seems to me that for the WTS to effectively withdraw at this stage sends a clear message... they are backing down - big time. With Lawrence acting as his own attorney, this was a good opportunity for the WTS to chalk up another legal victory on this issue - they've won plenty of them - just read the 5/22/94 Awake.
So the question becomes why? Is it because they feared the Witnesses lined up would prove to strong - the testimony too powerful? Or did someone in Brooklyn/Patterson who knows what is really going on with the WTS blood policy decide they didn't want this girl's blood on their hands since JWs use of hemoglobin is becoming widely known? (See 6/24 Newsweek). Perhaps they are getting concerned about their liability.
This is very uncharacteristic of the WTS to back down from court challenge to 17 year old JW "mature minor" being transfused against her will. They look to be running scared. - Lee Elder
These are such good points brought out by Lee Elder - and coupled with Hawkaw's reminder that there's another case pending in the Canadian Supreme Courts as we write - makes one sit back and ask........what's the reason? It might not be the best reasoning - but the WTBTS seems to have a reason for everything they do. Lawyers can usually see all sides which benefit them - they're paid to do that. How's the WTBTS benefit from calling off the polecats?
And, btw, the father had announced last week that due to enormous attorney fees - he was going to represent himself - which is legally, a very dubious action resulting in usually losing. That would seem an obvious shoo-in (landside victory - southern style) for the WTBTS. Why back down NOW?
I wonder if the WT's emphasis in going to the case before the Supreme Court is to set a legal precident. The issue of what constiutes a mature minor and how much control she should have over her life and dealth decisions would have bigger implications for them. If the WT wins at the Supreme Court level, they will have a much easier time the next time the same issue comes up. That is what the case before the supreme court is about, right? As far as I recall (which seems like very little lately, lol) some of the Supreme Court Judges are fairly strongly in favour of individual rights. Perhaps someone with a Canadian legal background knows more about it and can explain it.
