Policies against birthcontrol and abortion also leads to death. How can you say this is not in the same category as Manson? I know of a woman with one kidney that was warned not to get pregnant. She did, and now she and the fetus are dead. IT IS THE SAME THING! And if not, I would like to know your reasonings . . . .
My reasonings are simple. Certain criteria need be met before classifying things together with the blood policy.
Critera #1: Did the doctor say that the pregnancy will almost certainly bring about death, or was it more of a cautionary warning? Witnesses are not allowed transfusion of blood even in the most urgent cases, where blood is absolutely needed for survival.
Critera #2: Did the religion tell the woman that she were to get pregnant to be pleasing to God or face everlasting death even knowing for almost certainty that she would die if she did so? I believe most religions recognize that God does not want anyone to die!
Regarding abortion... yes, I suppose some religions say that you should not abort even if it saves the mother's life, but I believe critera #1 needs to be met before we classify this together with the blood policy. I'm sure you get where I am getting at. Even so, this scenario is extremely extremely rare, if at all in today's modern medicine. This make bringing something like this to court silly.
I welcome points against this reasoning.
It is obvious to me. Witnesses make an individual choice to refuse blood. The ultimate decision belongs to them, not the WT. Just b/c we disagree with it does not give us the right to stop them. I truly don't believe the actual intent of the Witnesses is to kill anyone. The direction causation of a death from refusing blood is not the WT doctrine but the individual actor.
Rutherford was insane. This is no doubt about this in my mind. One has to be crazy to ban vaccinations and organ transplants and calling most of the medical community evil pyramid worshippers from Satan? Only taking "the occasional surgery". That is insane, and even though he most likely believed the shit, doesn't make him any less guilt. And those leaders after him that went along with these blood stained teachings are just as blood guilty as him. As I've already said, are you saying that it is okay for me to coerce someone into committing suicide? I would not be held liable?
Scenario 1: A person dies because they refused to recieve a necessary blood transfusion after being persuaded to by the WTS by making them think that if they do, they face everlasting disfavor with God and condemned to everlasting death instead of seeing their dead loved ones come back to life in an eternally happy paradise life.
Scenario 2: A child dies because their parent(s) refused them to recieve a necessary blood transfusion after being persuaded to by the WTS by making them think that if they do, they face everlasting disfavor with God and condemned to everlasting death instead of seeing their dead loved ones come back to life in an eternally happy paradise life. How is this any worse than persuading a parent not to give a diabetic child insulin when it is readily available to the parent and the child dies because of it?
Individual responsibility remains. We live in a marketplace of ideas. Witnesses choose to be Witness. We did not live in compounds. There was interaction with the world. The Nuremberg trials asserted that even tho the Nazis were coercive, individuals had criminal responsibility for their acts.
I don't know what in particular about the trials you are talking about. Care to clarify? I doubt it is relevant to the WTS' blood policy, if it even reflects current law. Why bring up trials from 67 years ago when we are talking about modern day justice? Were the Nuremberg trials an absolute deciding factor on how all trials should be done after it? I don't understand the relevancy here. Thanks!
Now I have provided by reasonings. Why defend the WTS on this matter? This doesn't break the Constituation or anything like that.
