Quick question: Do JW children get blood cards?

by Bona Dea 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Bona Dea

  Just curious.

  I'm not a JW, so, I didn't know. I know they pass them out at the KH....but do the children get one too....and are they required to sign them and keep them with them???

  Thanks in advance...bona
• 

  Pistoff

  quick answer:

  YES. It is not the same as the adult card, as they cannot sign LEGAL documents, but it is an "identity card" that expresses the "child's" wishes (as expressed by the WT) to avoid blood, the details to be worked out in connection with the hospital liason committee, local witness elders who have all the details of what witnesses are allowed to take without sanction from the congregation.
• 

  Bona Dea

  Come on...surely someone must know the answer

  I would really like to know. If it's so, then I have to say this is just plain wrong. You would think that the Gov't wouldn't allow it...or do they (I'm in the US)? Wouldn't this be considered an indirect act of child abuse?? Not allowing your child necessary treatment in order to sustain or save his/her life. Forcing your child to sign a blood contract that would require them to deny the use of blood. Is it just me, or isn't this a form of cruelty?

  bona
• 

  Bona Dea

  Thanks Pistoff!!
• 

  Cassiline

  Good Morning Bona

  I have not been attending for 11 years plus. So I am not sure what the policy is now. But as a child I wore a gold metal circle pinned to my bra/undershirt at all times to alert any medical personal that I would not accept blood.

  It was about the size of a quater and engraved with the words "No Blood" on the back it was engraved; Acts 15:19,20

  Interesting question.
• 

  Bona Dea

  Thanks for the info, Cassiline.

  Actually, I'm in a debate on another forum right now. The issue up for debate is:

  "Should the government (local and national) have the right to tell you how to worship?"

  The author of the thread begins by stating:

  Let's say you practice Voodoo, or Voudon. Or one of the religions in the islands. And, as part of the ceremony, you sacrifice animals. Should the government, either local, or national be able to tell you you cannot do the sacrifice?
  
  How about Muslims who perform "female" circumcision on small children? It is painful, and potentially dangerous. Does the government have the right to tell them they cannot circumse their kids?
  
  How about Scientologists, who force their kids to purge (vomit) once a week to "purify" themselves?
  
  We might find these behaviors repulsive, but they are legitimate religious actions.
  
  A Christian, performing ritualistic Cannibilism by consuming Jesus's flesh & blood might be repulsive to other religions.
  
  So, understand, if you regulate one religion (and it's beliefs) you have to regulate them all.
  
  Say, a Witch wants to worship naked, can the law say no? Sould it say no?
  
  What do you guys think?
  
  I think the government (local & national) should stay out of our buisness.

  Of course, the issue of "ritualistic cannibilism" was debated but some other interesting comments were made that got me thinking. Here are some of the comments:

  Female 'circumcision" or MUTILATION is barbaric; it is very abhorrant and just plain evil as far as I am concerned. To perform 'surgeries' on innocent children is an outrage and most definitely should be punishable by law. The witholding of food, or medical treatment ; when the child's life is in danger should be governed by laws of the state. Whenever ANYONE's life is in danger; it doesn't matter what religion it is; then that is when the Law should step in and take over. Other than that; you can worship naked as a jay bird and howl at the moon if you wish....whatever...and it is ok

  You see, there is a line...the government cannot stop you from practicing your religion-but they can stop you from practicing the parts that violate federal law. This would include murder, rape, child endangerment, and most drug use. Dancing naked, however, does not violate federal law, and for the most part neither does some animal sacrifice. That is how the Supreme Court has ruled...Child endangerment includes, but is not limited to: withholding treatment for illnesses; forcing your kid to purge; sexual abuse; displaying of nudity; placing a child in a situation where their lives may be in danger-hence child endangerment. If you wanted to debate the definition of what child endangerment is you should have made the post about that. In general terms, a group of consenting adults-which I naturally thought you were talking about, as I did include child endangerment as a taboo of the federal government-is not a crime on private property out of view of the public eye. Child endangerment is a case in itself-you imply in your post that we are debating when the government can or cannot intervene.

  So, this is why I am asking about their blood policies regarding children.

  Should parents have legal rights to deny their children blood? Is it legal? If it isn't, shouldn't it be?

  If I choose to not accept a blood transfusion, that is one thing...when I make that choice for my child, that is something entirely different. I think when the life of a child is involved and there is a choice between the welfare of a child and the parents "right" to enforce their religious convictions, the child's life should ALWAYS take precedence. What do you think?

  The original debate can be found here: http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm286402.html
• 

  Jesus Christ

  Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they like to each other but I think that the government should definitely step in to protect any children from abusive practices despite any idiotic religous ceremony it may mean breaking up.