They SLAUGHTER KIDS in JWdom, don't they, Mom?

by Focus 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  philo

  Focus,

  >>Definition: A death is UNNECESSARY if it occurred when it could've been prevented without any great extra expenditure or effort. Hence, proved. Proof by definition. Allowed.

  I can't let you have that.

  By this you mean, presumably, that nobody can possibly offer any reasons why those deaths might have been necessary. But, as distasteful as I find it, I can find a few. Look ye.

  1. The occasional bleeding 'unto death' provides a wonderful martyrdom to motivate the brothers. "If 7 year old Johnny could stay loyal, there's hope for us all in the tribulation"

  2. A dash of blood and a splash of publicity do wonders for the JW self-image of being a special, persecuted people. It highlights their peculiarity in a way that the public can respond to by getting angry.

  3. There is a need to liven up the JW palate consisting of Black and White, but which just mixes up to Grey. So a few drops of lifeblood give interest and, dare I say it, excitement to the picture? And there's nothing quite like a tangible enemy to quicken the blood. So doctors, nurses, judges, and journalists, run about the stage playing their demonic roles to fill the missing sense of drama in the JW's lives: the agony and the ecstacy.

  To counter the above advantageous aspects (or these 'necessaries things' :Acts 15) of the '''''No''''' Blood Doctrine, you have to show it to be Non Christian. An appeal to humanity is insufficient as there are routinely much bigger mortality factors on the lives of JWs than result from this doctrine.

  By selecting the right focal length you can see so much more, don't you think?

  :)

  philo

  Edited by - philo on 7 March 2001 5:59:50
• 

  Focus

  1. The occasional bleeding 'unto death' provides a wonderful martyrdom to motivate the brothers. "If 7 year old Johnny could stay loyal, there's hope for us all in the tribulation"

  2. & 3. appeared much the same.

  And surely this is part of the Watchtower's Foul Scheme, as evidenced in the "Awake!" of May 22, 1994 ('Youths Who Put God First', pp3-15). It shows kids who died on the altar of the Watchtower. "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."

  And here is a memorial to a few of the unnecessary deaths:

  >> http://www.abaweb.com/WATCHTOWERvictimsMEMORIAL/

  Re: the Christian argument - does the Bible really say what the JWs claim it says? Well, this has been done very often. As suggested, I'll provide some key links:

  >> http://www.ajwrb.org/bible/index.shtml

  >> http://www.jwbloodreview.org

  A careful read of these will give the sensible reader comfort that the Watchtower teachings on blood are unscriptural and arbitrary.

  By selecting the right focal length you can see so much more

  I'll zoom with you on that one. Why not participate in the f iendly threads, philo?

  --
  Focus
  (Respondent Class)
• 

  Xandit

  Focus your verbosity in no way obviates the fact that you are misrepresenting, that you are a willful liar.

  I notice you didn't produce the second quote.

  6 of 9 you may be credulous because you were raised as a Witness but that's your personal problem. You want to believe Focus rubbish go ahead, your association with a blind guide is clearly approriate.
• 

  philo

  Xandit

  ::wilful liar

  Can't you just behave yourself. Finding myself reading such stuff, I am insulted, even though I am not being addressed! If you care to document alleged lies then that's fair enough. Otherwise you should button it.

  I have read all Focus' recent posts. And although I don't want to get into that debate, I have not even a remote impression of Focus telling lies there(wilful or otherwise). Nor do I feel the issue of misrepresentation comes up on either side of the debate.

  Focus is getting at what many see as the irresponsibility of the organisation on a telling issue, child abuse. There are strong feelings on this issue, so there should be. If the organisation is being irresponsible wouldn't you want that out in the open? I think the time has come for the WT to defend itself against these charges openly, not quietly via secret memoranda.

  If Focus' style gets under your skin, count to ten and think of the issue here.

  philo
• 

  Sassenach

  Xandit, I didn't look for the second quote in the awake, but this appears on the official webite for jehovah's witness.

  Even 30 years ago, pathologists and blood-bank
  personnel were advised: "Blood is dynamite! It can do a
  great deal of good or a great deal of harm. The mortality
  from blood transfusion equals that from ether anesthesia
  or appendectomy. There is said to be approximately one
  death in 1,000 to 3,000 or possibly 5,000 transfusions. In
  the London area there has been reported one death for
  every 13,000 bottles of blood transfused."?New York
  State Journal of Medicine, January 15, 1960..

  The quote is from 1960. I wonder what the recent statistics are? I would think with all the precautions now, it would be less--therefore less likely to die from transfused blood. That is only a guess. If they used 1960 statistics in the 1992 Awake, that wouldn't make sense. I'd like to see the actual quote from the awake and the context. I'm doing a search on blood transfusions and mortality rates.

  .. http://www.watchtower.org/library/hb/article_02.htm

  I know focus misrepresented the Doctor as being "sympathetic" to jehovah's witnesses, but is there something in the mathematical analysis that you see as false?

  This is what I disagree with:

  Worldwide JW Memorial attendance is a good approximation to the number of JWs and dependents (for whom JWs would make life-or-death decisions) - it currently runs at about 15.5 million judging
  by their own claims.

  I think the 90% assumption on that figure is generous. The hall I went to increased by about 100 people at memorial time. That included a lot of studies and their families who never came to the hall again.

  I do believe that they are blood guilty, no matter what statistics you come up with.

  Edited by - sassenach on 8 March 2001 1:51:31
• 

  philo

  Sassenach

  Thanks for your viewpoints. No wasn't concerned about the figures, just surprised is all. The JW line (and mine) was always that "hardly ever does someone die through the policy and if they do, its there are probably other factors to balme too".

  I am currently looking for some studies on mortality rates. I'll post em up when/if they come through.

  philo
• 

  TR

  To all,

  All the quoting and argumentation aside, would you accept a blood transfusion in an emergency situation, if it was deemed necessary to save your life? This is assuming that there is no alternative treatment readily available. I would.

  If the situation was elective or non-emergency surgery, I would choose to go non-blood if at all possible. Seems like the prudent way to go.

  TR
• 

  Sassenach

  This could be true for blood transfusions as well.

  "hardly ever does someone die through the policy and if they do,its there are probably other factors to balme too".

  philo, I was just thinking, if todays statistics have improved, i.e. with new testing procedures, then there is probably less of a chance in dying as a result of transfused blood. Also, I was told by an MD, that the use of blood has dropped. So that it's only used in critically ill patients, no longer as a standard procedure. I'm wondering if the mortality rates reflect whether the patient dies as a direct result of having been transfused? I hope this makes sense, but if you get a statistic that says 1/100 patients transfused dies, it may not a be reliable reflection of transfusion complications, but that in many hopitals, blood is only used if deemeed absolutely necesarry, therefore the patient is already in trouble medically. That's the trend in Canada, at least.

  If you can find some statistics, can you find out the variables used to compare the patients? 100 nontransfused jws undergoing a surgical procedure do not compare equally with 100 patients that have been transfused, unless their medical conditions are equal. Actually, you wouldn't have to even control for medical condition, use all levels. There must be a study out there that simply compares the two groups as a whole. Jws undergoing surgery and heathens undergoing surgery.

  Edited by - Sassenach on 8 March 2001 11:19:51
• 

  mommy

  Focus, thank you for starting this thread.
  Xandit, get a life.
  Sass,
  In my opinion, 2 people can't really be compared,as you mentioned there is diffeent degrees of wellness to account for. I have seen well over 100 blood transfusions but only 1 reaction, and this was an allergic reacton. Close monitoring is done of a patient that is having a transfusion, frequent vital signs, and they are not left alone. On a personal level I am with TR if given the chice, I would not accept. But that does not stop me from donating my blood to be used. I think alot of cases can be brought up to prove that transfusions have saved lives, and they also have been used to spread diseases. But the testing is much more strict, than it was years ago.
  The point I would like to make is that the wtbts has changed their view on what is acceptable and what is not. This in turn has caused some to make decisions that may have cost their loved ones lives. They are accountable for them. But refuse to accept, they downplay it. And this is what frustrates me. How can they hide behind the name of God and allow this to happen? How can they brush under the rug all of the people who have died for this ever changing doctrine?
  wendy
• 

  ianao

  Mommy said:

  They are accountable for them. But refuse to accept, they downplay it. And this is what frustrates me. How can they hide behind the name of God and allow this to happen? How can they brush under the rug all of the people who have died for this ever changing doctrine?

  Just more proof that religion is nothing but spiritual politics, IMO.