JW beliefs kill mother

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2007-11-06 12:24am

Actually I have a Darwin Award here that says that you can earn a Darwin Award even if you have had kids.

I can quote it, if you insist.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-11-06 12:28am

Zablorg wrote:Actually I have a Darwin Award here that says that you can earn a Darwin Award even if you have had kids.

I can quote it, if you insist.

Perhaps you should link it instead of expecting us to take your word on something hilariously vague. The rules for Darwins are pretty clear cut.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2007-11-06 12:32am

That works too:

The existence of offspring, though potentially deleterious to the gene pool, does not disqualify a nominee.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-11-06 12:36am

Zablorg wrote:That works too:

The existence of offspring, though potentially deleterious to the gene pool, does not disqualify a nominee.

I meant link us to the award you're talking about dumbass. Not the rules which I just linked to in my earlier post.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2007-11-06 12:38am

Its actually in the front, where it gives a summary of the rules.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-11-06 12:41am

Zablorg wrote:Its actually in the front, where it gives a summary of the rules.

Are you talking about this? Your vagueness is not helping.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2007-11-06 12:47am

Thats the one, sorry.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-11-06 12:51am

Zablorg wrote:Actually I have a Darwin Award here that says that you can earn a Darwin Award even if you have had kids.

I can quote it, if you insist.

Well that's just dumb. If you already shat out a mini-tard then your death doesn't really contribute anything positive to the gene pool.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2007-11-06 12:54am

They justify it by claiming that the "stupidity gene" is not neccissarily passed down to their offspring.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-06 01:22am

Flagg wrote:

Well that's just dumb. If you already shat out a mini-tard then your death doesn't really contribute anything positive to the gene pool.

It does mean that at least you won't be contributing any more, though.

Fewer being better, even if none is ideal.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-11-06 06:00pm

Zablorg wrote:They justify it by claiming that the "stupidity gene" is not neccissarily passed down to their offspring.

Well, if you want to go that route the stupidity in this particular case is clearly a learned behavior (stupid religious beliefs).

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2007-11-06 06:33pm

Back on topic even using a dialysis machine such as the one pictured below can be considered by some JWs to be wrong. Even though it's YOUR blood coming back to you that's been processed. I knew a JW that was "breaking" the faith by doing this but leaving her children motherless left a bad taste in her mouth

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-06 06:49pm

Well, jeez, you can tell that thing is Satanic, just by looking at it...

Kojiro · Post by **Kojiro** » 2007-11-06 11:00pm

Always reminds me of that B5 episode Believers when I hear about something like this.

Doctor: "You don't disapprove of superstition, if it's your superstition."
Franklin: "What is that supposed to mean?"
Doctor: "They worship the Great Egg, your god is medicine, and you can do no wrong in his service. What's the difference?"
Franklin: "I produce measurable, testable results."

Is a blood transfusion such a sin their god can't forgive it?

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2007-11-07 05:50am

Kojiro wrote: Is a blood transfusion such a sin their god can't forgive it?

Yes. Arbirary restrictions on lifestyle are a staple of exclusive belief systems. They are quite literally necessary if a religion is to have any devout followers at all.

And if some poeple die because they adhered to those restrictions? Hell yeah! Now they have a martyr, and can feel even more superior than anybody else!

It's really the same with any other group, though. The human brain is fucked up, as I've said before. We need serious rewiring.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2007-11-07 09:31am

Speaking from experience it's rather rare that JW's actually die from not receiving blood transfusions. She must really have lost a lot of blood. In fact there is a video that describes in detail some of the alternatives to blood transfusions that witness' have available to them. Though I would most likely do more research on my own, from what I have gathered they are essentially just as effective if not more so depending on some cases to blood.

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2007-11-07 09:33am

PeZook wrote:
Kojiro wrote: Is a blood transfusion such a sin their god can't forgive it?
Yes. Arbirary restrictions on lifestyle are a staple of exclusive belief systems. They are quite literally necessary if a religion is to have any devout followers at all.

And if some poeple die because they adhered to those restrictions? Hell yeah! Now they have a martyr, and can feel even more superior than anybody else!

It's really the same with any other group, though. The human brain is fucked up, as I've said before. We need serious rewiring.

And technically any sin is forgivable save the singular unforgivable sin (which is kinda hard to pinpoint).

RIPP_n_WIPE · Post by **RIPP_n_WIPE** » 2007-11-07 09:37am

Lisa wrote:Back on topic even using a dialysis machine such as the one pictured below can be considered by some JWs to be wrong. Even though it's YOUR blood coming back to you that's been processed. I knew a JW that was "breaking" the faith by doing this but leaving her children motherless left a bad taste in her mouth

http://geekgrrl.ca/dialysis.jpg

That looks sort of like the cell saver machine that they have in one of the videos. it's supposed to be okay (theologically) since technically the blood isn't ever not connected to you. Once your blood starts going back into your body it's a complete "circuit", if you will, of your own blood. Once your blood if completely detached from you however, it's no longer viable for your use. Witnesses aren't allowed to store their own blood for medical use because technically it's no longer part of their body.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-11-07 12:18pm

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:
Lisa wrote:Back on topic even using a dialysis machine such as the one pictured below can be considered by some JWs to be wrong. Even though it's YOUR blood coming back to you that's been processed. I knew a JW that was "breaking" the faith by doing this but leaving her children motherless left a bad taste in her mouth

http://geekgrrl.ca/dialysis.jpg
That looks sort of like the cell saver machine that they have in one of the videos. it's supposed to be okay (theologically) since technically the blood isn't ever not connected to you. Once your blood starts going back into your body it's a complete "circuit", if you will, of your own blood. Once your blood if completely detached from you however, it's no longer viable for your use. Witnesses aren't allowed to store their own blood for medical use because technically it's no longer part of their body.

Damn, talk about hair splitting. Thats as stipid as not allowing the re-attachment of a severed finger.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-07 12:26pm

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:
And technically any sin is forgivable save the singular unforgivable sin (which is kinda hard to pinpoint).

Don't Christians regard a deathbed rejection of Christ, as the singular unforgivable sin...?

If I have to choose between a licensed physician's determination of necessity regarding a whole-blood or blood-product transfusion, and some religious fantasy regarding what's most suitable, I think I'll just be ungodly and go with professional medical advice...

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2007-11-07 12:37pm

Kanastrous wrote:
RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:
And technically any sin is forgivable save the singular unforgivable sin (which is kinda hard to pinpoint).
Don't Christians regard a deathbed rejection of Christ, as the singular unforgivable sin...?

I've heard that Catholics regard suicide as the only unforgivable sin, if only because after that, well, you won't be around to seek absolution.

Kanastrous wrote:If I have to choose between a licensed physician's determination of necessity regarding a whole-blood or blood-product transfusion, and some religious fantasy regarding what's most suitable, I think I'll just be ungodly and go with professional medical advice...

That's easy to say when, for folks like you or me, the afterlife isn't an issue. If you've been brainwashed for your entire life to believe that the disposition of your immortal soul is tied up in whether or not you accept the ungodly blood products to save your filthy little life for a few more measly decades, that call is a little tougher to make. It doesn't matter that this mindset isn't rational; these people appear to actually believe it.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-07 12:41pm

SCRawl wrote: That's easy to say when, for folks like you or me, the afterlife isn't an issue.

Who sez it's not an issue?

I'm saved in "Bob."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-11-07 12:52pm

Darth Servo wrote:Damn, talk about hair splitting.

That's the nature of Biblical literalism. It's got all of the flaws of the legal system, but without any requirement of objective evidence or any possibility of updating the rules.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2007-11-07 12:57pm

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:Speaking from experience it's rather rare that JW's actually die from not receiving blood transfusions.

Although it's partially because many JWs, when they go to the hospital and it's their own life at stake, suddenly start having all these unholy thoughts. Stuff like, "You know, we're supposed to be the righteous ones who are correct in theology, but there are a few million of us, only 144,000 slots in Heaven, and most of those spots are already taken. What's the real likelihood of me actually getting one? But if I get a blood transfusion, I'll definitely live a good while longer." One of my closest friends was a nurse who often worked in the trauma center, and she said it was amazing how many JWs had deathbed de-conversions when they realized that it didn't have to be their deathbed.

BUT, if it was someone else who needed blood and he/she was unable to give consent, possibly because the person was unconscious, they would always die because their relatives would refuse to let them have a transfusion. They always hated getting an unconscious or minor JW because they would always die in the end.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2007-11-07 06:00pm

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:Speaking from experience it's rather rare that JW's actually die from not receiving blood transfusions. She must really have lost a lot of blood. In fact there is a video that describes in detail some of the alternatives to blood transfusions that witness' have available to them. Though I would most likely do more research on my own, from what I have gathered they are essentially just as effective if not more so depending on some cases to blood.

If they are just as effective as blood transfusions, why do we even need blood donations ?

Or are these alternatives only useful in specific situations ?