I heard that the government will step in if the parents refuse to save a childs life because if the parents refuse then they are committing murder, except in cases where the child is terminally ill.
2006-11-08 02:11:01 · 19 answers · asked by daisy322_98 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
JWs should not be allowed to reproduce.
2006-11-08 02:14:47 · answer #1 · answered by Kathryn™ 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
We do and a great many are alive because of the fact of it. If it replaced into no longer a damaging practice, why is a sparkling Texas wellbeing facility going blood transfusion unfastened? Their introduced purpose is to flow ninety 5% transfusion unfastened operations there. it somewhat is now the hot vogue. I easily have information for many of the haters obtainable. There at the instant are not that many Jehovah's Witnesses to make that good sized of a distinction to alter. Regardless, the main reason we don't settle for transfusions is the Bible orders us to no longer consume blood. In Leviticus of direction, yet additionally for Christians besides. while the communicate replaced into occurring as to what variations Gentiles might would desire to make to grow to be Christians, between the fundamental issues replaced into to "abstain from blood". (Acts 15: 20, 29) Now we immediately stick to that ruling yet comprehend each little thing is made out of molecules and those substitute variety. What replaced into your pores and skin or spleen 7 years in the past is now a nutrient modern-day on your grass. So how far down the element chain blood is going to the place it somewhat is no longer blood the Bible does no longer say. It would desire to then be as much as a guy or woman's judgment of right and incorrect. In such concerns, Jehovah might seem for the sparkling judgment of right and incorrect of a guy or woman in judgment.
2016-10-21 11:38:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
IT is the parents right to choose what kind of medical treatment their child receives. But there have been cases where the government has stepped in and taken the child. In most cases blood isnt necessary, its just something that has become common. Its a big money maker for the hospital so they hand it out like candy. Bloodless surgery is better for the patient in the long run(and there have been NUMEROUS studies to show that) There is ALWAYS a chance of contracting something from the blood supply, even tho the govt. wants you to think its safe.
2006-11-08 03:02:27 · answer #3 · answered by SKITTLES 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
well, if the medical team was smart, they'd get a court order to do so. If I were a satanic, and wanted to do some kind of sacrifice with a human, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter if it was my religion or not. It would still be against the law, however refusal of treatement doesn't necessarily go against law. I heard of the gov't getting involved and taking a child away because they didn't want to have their child get radiation treatment. When it comes to medical decisions, theres a fine line. My idea of what is the right treatment is not your idea of what is right.
2006-11-08 02:17:06 · answer #4 · answered by ♫O Praise Him♫ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. A guardian ad litum would be appointed who is supposed to be a nuetral person to determine the best interests of the child. If it is determined that the child was denied life-saving medication, the parents would be charged with neglect at the very least.
2006-11-08 02:29:45 · answer #5 · answered by Allison L 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they would not be allowed to kill the child, the child would be given a blood transfusion even if they tried to stop it from happening. The government wouldn't let the child die, and if the parents tried to interevene they would be arrested...
2006-11-08 02:26:44 · answer #6 · answered by Shinkirou Hasukage 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would fall under the category of child neglect in addition to murder. I would hope that any parent who did that was punished, but even that is unlikely to change their position on the subject. They'd probably just say the gov't was being hostile and prejuiced against them.
2006-11-08 02:19:46 · answer #7 · answered by Cinnamon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on the state. Some states, probably. I do know that the males prefer to go to jail instead of serving a mandatory military service in countries that require it. Like France and Korea.
Good question actually.
2006-11-08 02:16:31 · answer #8 · answered by Coool 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I would hope they'd end up in jail. The JW absurity that a blood transfusion is "eating blood" is just simply wacko! Cults major on wacko and attract wackos too.
2006-11-08 02:14:34 · answer #9 · answered by mediocritis 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
IN some states assisted suicide is legal for the terminally ill. It just depends on the state.
2006-11-08 02:16:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they don't go to jail, they should.....especially since it's a total misinterpretation of scripture that can cost them the life of their innocent child!
2006-11-08 02:16:06 · answer #11 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋