JW Mother Dies After Refusing Blood Transfusion

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zerinus said:
You must have missed the threads where the abortion issue was discussed.

zerinus
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
So you’re for abortion? Is that in all cases? Or are you able to choose who lives and who dies?

This issue is interesting and I’d love to hear from a JW on it! You have to admire this young Woman’s conviction to YHWH!! I’m fairly sure their literature says that this sort of thing can’t happen then?
 
The only case where ending a pregnancy is medically indicated for the life of the mother is something extreme, like
an ectopic pregnancy. Such a pregnancy would never come to full term anyway, and it would definitely kill the mother.

In that case, the fetus can be removed,
but you must try to save the life of the fetus if at all possible.

The Catholic Church recognizes that there are medical cases in which a fetus has to be removed from a woman, but it is never necessary to deliberately kill the fetus to do that.

We do not believe in killing our mothers to save the fetus.
We believe in saving our mothers AND trying to save the fetus.

What you said about us is libellous.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
zerinus said:
You must have missed the threads where the abortion issue was discussed.

zerinus
Click to expand...
If you are going to make such a nutty statement based on another thread, could you at least be courteous enough tell us which thread it is so those of us in the dark do not start the whole discussion over?
 
pnewton said:
If you are going to make such a nutty statement based on another thread, could you at least be courteous enough tell us which thread it is so those of us in the dark do not start the whole discussion over?
Click to expand...
I second that
 
Um…
So if I refuse to kill the baby, that means I advocate killing the mother?
No, Zerinus. That’s a logical fallacy known as “false dichotomy”.
It’s like saying if I deny that a wall is painted white, I must be claiming it’s painted black. The wall might in fact be green or blue or red. You leave out all but two possibilities.
 
pnewton said:
If you are going to make such a nutty statement based on another thread, could you at least be courteous enough tell us which thread it is so those of us in the dark do not start the whole discussion over?
Click to expand...
Yes, zerinus, why don’t you provide us with links to the threads where you stated your misconceptions about Catholicism as fact over and over again. You also stated your (Mormon) views on abortion and related issues rationally enough, but you ended the dialogue when questions started getting tough.

Why do you keep posting your thinly disguised beefs with the Catholic Church in the Non-Catholic Religions forum? The proper place to hash out your issues with Catholicism is in the Apologetics forum.
 
FightingFat said:
:rolleyes:
So you’re for abortion? Is that in all cases? Or are you able to choose who lives and who dies?
Click to expand...
No; but I believe that the life, safety, and wellbeing of the mother is even more important. Abortion should be permissible in those exceptional circumstances.
This issue is interesting and I’d love to hear from a JW on it! You have to admire this young Woman’s conviction to YHWH!!
Click to expand...
Yes; her conviction is admirable, but her folly is not.
I’m fairly sure their literature says that this sort of thing can’t happen then?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t clear what that meant.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
No; but I believe that the life, safety, and wellbeing of the mother is even more important. Abortion should be permissible in those exceptional circumstances.
Click to expand...
So you’re for killing the baby, but only in certain strict circumstamces? So the rest of the time, it’s wrong to kill the baby?
40.png
zerinus:
Yes; her conviction is admirable, but her folly is not.

Because she died for what she believed in? You wouldn’t die for what you believe in? For your faith? Your wife? Your children? Your country?

Fidelity is something to be admired I think. The covenant God wrought with Israel was all about faithful adherance. I think there is an argument to be had with those that teach doctrine that led to this woman’s abstinence from life saving medical proceedures, but I admire her faith, and I would expect God to welcome her with open arms for dying rather than betray the covenant she had made with him!

zerinus;2929481[/COLOR said:
]
I wasn’t clear what that meant.
Click to expand...

Just that I thought JW’s claimed that no one dies from refusing a transfusion-- there are alternatives and they should be avaliable.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
The only case where ending a pregnancy is medically indicated for the life of the mother is something extreme, like an ectopic pregnancy. Such a pregnancy would never come to full term anyway, and it would definitely kill the mother.

In that case, the fetus can be removed, . . .
Click to expand...
You should tell that to some of the other Catholics I have been debating with here. The message I have been getting from others have been different.
. . . but you must try to save the life of the fetus if at all possible.
Click to expand...
No disagreements with that–but not at the expense of the life of the mother of course.
The Catholic Church recognizes that there are medical cases in which a fetus has to be removed from a woman, but it is never necessary to deliberately kill the fetus to do that.
Click to expand...
How can you remove the fetus without killing it?
We do not believe in killing our mothers to save the fetus.
Click to expand...
I am glad to hear that; but the message I have been hearing from others seems to be different.
We believe in saving our mothers AND trying to save the fetus.
Click to expand...
When that is possible, that of course would be the best outcome. No arguments with that.
What you said about us is libellous.
Click to expand...
:cool:

zerinus
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
The only case where ending a pregnancy is medically indicated for the life of the mother is something extreme, like
an ectopic pregnancy. Such a pregnancy would never come to full term anyway, and it would definitely kill the mother.

In that case, the fetus can be removed,
but you must try to save the life of the fetus if at all possible.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true. The tube must be removed as well, not just the embryo (it most likely has not reached fetus stage if it is a tubal pregnancy). It is not moral to remove only the embryo. Details can be found in other threads on this subject.

~Liza
 
Reepicheep said:
Um…
So if I refuse to kill the baby, that means I advocate killing the mother?
No, Zerinus. That’s a logical fallacy known as “false dichotomy”.
It’s like saying if I deny that a wall is painted white, I must be claiming it’s painted black. The wall might in fact be green or blue or red. You leave out all but two possibilities.
Click to expand...
You know that that is not what we are saying.

zerinus
 
Um…
So if I refuse to kill the baby, that means I advocate killing the mother?
No, Zerinus. That’s a logical fallacy known as “false dichotomy”.
It’s like saying if I deny that a wall is painted white, I must be claiming it’s painted black. The wall might in fact be green or blue or red. You leave out all but two possibilities.
Click to expand...
Bravo for spotting the bad logic. You are right on here and I am glad you were able to put a name to it.
 
FightingFat said:
So you’re for killing the baby, but only in certain strict circumstamces? So the rest of the time, it’s wrong to kill the baby?
Click to expand...
No; I am for saving the mother at all cost, including the cost of aborting the fetus.
Because she died for what she believed in? You wouldn’t die for what you believe in? For your faith? Your wife? Your children? Your country?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would die for my beliefs; but I hope not for my follies. I am sure you will now say, “One man’s belief is another man’s folly!” Maybe; but I happen to know that my beliefs are not follies.
Fidelity is something to be admired I think. The covenant God wrought with Israel was all about faithful adherance. I think there is an argument to be had with those that teach doctrine that led to this woman’s abstinence from life saving medical proceedures, but I admire her faith, and I would expect God to welcome her with open arms for dying rather than betray the covenant she had made with him!
Click to expand...
Well, I did say that I admire her dedication, but not her folly.
Just that I thought JW’s claimed that no one dies from refusing a transfusion–there are alternatives and they should be avaliable.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t heard of that before. What alternatives?

zerinus
 
lizaanne said:
This is not entirely true. The tube must be removed as well, not just the embryo (it most likely has not reached fetus stage if it is a tubal pregnancy). It is not moral to remove only the embryo. Details can be found in other threads on this subject.

~Liza
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the kind of thing I was referring to. In other words, what you are saying is that the woman must be (needlessly) mutilated for the operation to be morally acceptable under Catholic doctrine. I consider that to be the hight of folly and immorality. It is a crime.

zerinus
 
Can we just change the name of this thread to:

“zerinus’ beef with Catholic stance on abortion” ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top