OVO

Gemma O'Doherty: "Why I'd let my daughter die before allowing her to have a blood transfusion" [LINK-ZUM]

Rebecca Whelan adores her 13-month-old baby daughter Reese - but she would let her die before giving permission for her to have a blood transfusion. "One day when she's older she might look at me and ask 'would you have done that to me?' I would have to tell her yes. If she chooses not to take up my beliefs and is upset with me for that, it would be very sad - but I have to stand by my faith." [...]

"In our religion, we have very clear standards about blood, which God asks us to abstain from using. In Scripture, blood is described as a very sacred thing that should not be shared. Even if I was told by doctors that my refusal to take it would result in death, it would still not be an option for me. I would stick to that belief even if they told me Reese's life was in jeopardy." [...]

"To us, it is about nothing more than being loyal to God. It is not an emotional decision. If the crunch came and my child ended up dying because she needed a blood transfusion, at least I would feel I had done everything according to my faith. I am also reassured that I would see her again."

[Article continues at link. If I were to have a child, then give an interview in the newspaper that I was willing to cause them to die through neglect as part of my service to Battlecat, I am quite sure that the law and society would be against me. Battlecat is an imaginary being. Only religion makes child sacrifice socially acceptable. But not just any religion. I couldn't get away with causing my child to die through neglect as part of my service to Geb the Great Cackler. Geb is a real God, just like all the other real Gods. But no one worships Geb any more. To get away with child sacrifice I would have to cause them to die through neglect as part of my service to a contemporary superstition. That gods aren't real doesn't matter. That today's gods are just as imaginary as the thousands and thousands of yesterday's gods doesn't matter. But heavens above, if I cause a child to die through neglect as part of my service to a contemporary imaginary invisible monster that lives in the sky - that's a private affair. It just barely matters that the lovely young mother shown above doesn't even have her own superstition right. Sometimes the Jehovah's Witnesses forbid blood transfusions (Watchtower 1961 Sept 15; 1964 Feb 15) and sometimes they don't (Watchtower 1964 Nov 15; 2000 June 15). Why would this woman pick the superstition that kills her child over the superstition that lets her child live? Maybe because her religion demands child sacrifice (Genesis 22:2; Exodus 22:29-30; Leviticus 27:28-29; Numbers 31:25-29; Deuteronomy 28:53-62; Judges 11:29-40; 2 Samuel 21:1,8-9, 14; 1 Kings 13:2; 2 Kings 23:20; Ezekiel 20:25-26; Mark 5:18-19; Luke 16:17). Maybe because religion softens minds and hardens hearts. As always, I advocate a reasoned critique of religion seasoned with scorn and contempt as the most peaceful and effective means to help children survive their religious parents. - Trevor Blake]

Labels: christianity, watchtower

ovoyeur

rss

archives
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008