dagblog - Comments for "Prince v. Supreme Court"

According to Prince’s

Anonymous — Sun, 22 May 2016 23:27:18 +0000

In reply to Nice job, pp. Seems you've

According to Prince’s biographer, he embraced his faith.

I can’t imagine, Prince wouldn’t have bequeathed a portion of his estate, to promote the Kingdom work.

Loving his God so much; he made a decision to dedicate his life and become a baptized publisher,to follow Jesus’ command;, to give all he had to be a footstep follower.

I find it odd, that no will was found.

In for a drop, in for a pint

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 19 May 2016 07:48:36 +0000

In reply to I'm not against it but as you

In for a drop, in for a pint they say...

I'm not against it but as you

Oxy Mora — Thu, 19 May 2016 01:04:04 +0000

In reply to Different strokes for

I'm not against it but as you know, except in the rare case, it never stops there. Vampires, for example.

Different strokes for

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 19 May 2016 00:11:02 +0000

In reply to Should we cover a medical

Different strokes for different folks. Are you against self-determinism

Should we cover a medical

Oxy Mora — Wed, 18 May 2016 23:53:42 +0000

In reply to I like ritual mutilation and

Should we cover a medical procedure which led to the extinction of the Neanderthals?

I like ritual mutilation and

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 18 May 2016 21:17:24 +0000

In reply to Personally, I'm against

I like ritual mutilation and bloodletting, but probly cuz that's how I swing rather than any medical benefit. Still, if you want to do autotrepanation, it should be covered by Obamacare.

This issue began decades ago

Aislin Matthews — Wed, 18 May 2016 20:10:16 +0000

In reply to "Bloodless" is well known.

This issue began decades ago as Witnesses refused blood based upon their religious convictions. Today the notion of blood as a tool in medicine is facing the "was that a good idea in the first place" question so many of man's inventions face. The answer, in hind sight, is that is was probably not such a good idea "good idea". But that discussion is a medical one and not a religious one.

There are many aspects to bloodless medicine. Washing and reintroducing ones own blood is only one of very many alternatives. For the conscientious objector choosing the form of treatment that agrees with ones belief is the key.

Most forms of bloodless medicine approach the treatment as a "whole package". Get the patient healthier, make them stable, get their own blood count up, proceed. This in itself brings better results. But, even in critical situations there are many bloodless alternatives. The choices and research options are quite available for anyone who wishes to explore them.

Witnesses view the blood as sacred. There are elements carried in and with blood that are not "essentially blood". Whether to consider these is a choice for the individual. The paramount consideration for a Witness is not to violate how one individually views God's command to abstain from blood. This is not based upon guesswork but upon research, reason, thought (meditation) and prayer. Witnesses are provided much assistance in the form of the latest science on the subject which is regularly updated.

Here is a link to the medical

Aislin Matthews — Wed, 18 May 2016 19:31:55 +0000

In reply to Thanks, I'm largely ignorant

Here is a link to the medical information provided by Jehovah's Witnesses.

https://www.jw.org/en/medical-library/ You will find it quite complete.

The discussion about the proper treatment of children within the medical community deserves a response.

The world has moved away from the proper raising of children in general. The secular approach is to distance parental discipline, or anything else that would direct a child's developing environment, so that the child will be able to explore all possibilities for himself. The Christian fundamentalist view is that children should be guided and nurtured by an environment most likely to result in a kinship with the views of the parent.

These two approaches are polar opposites. When considering the proper medical care of children as viewed through the lens of the secularist one will of course conclude that any decision made that weighs non-physical criteria as equal or heavier than the physical would be wrong. The Christian fundamentalist believes that the spiritual concerns are as important, indeed more important in some instances, than physical. The latter also views the wonderful progress the world has made with its "no barriers" approach, asking "how's that working for you?". From the condition of the world many would say not very well.

Medical professionals have long valued the importance of treating the "whole" person. Yet the non-medical secularist will say, that's good for the adult, but not for the child who is the responsibility of the adult. The rightness of the view that parents gave birth, and therefore are responsible for their children and decisions affecting them, is apparently a position challenged by many in the world, selectively to be sure. Those that believe that a parent's right to choose not to accept a transfusion for their children is the "line not to be crossed", and where others should step in, are the very same that would raise arms if someone insisted on a certain procedure for their children that they object to.

Life is full of slippery slopes. The concept of removing parental responsibility in favor of community parenting is one fraught with dilemma. It is based upon the irrational and illogical conclusions of those who react but do not consider. There are many abuses affecting children and these are often used as the premise for denying parental rights and responsibility. But a reasoning person can distinguish between the non-loving parent who abuses their child and the loving parent who cares for the whole child.

Loving parenting is a God given responsibility. A principal. Biblical principals always work.

Personally, I'm against

Oxy Mora — Wed, 18 May 2016 17:30:32 +0000

In reply to In the wake of Prince's death

Personally, I'm against transfusions, or injections, of collagen. For one thing, in the design of God's creation of earths creatures, collagen is much more fundamental than blood---and the fact that the Bible somehow omits it doesn't negate its higher importance in the existence of life forms. Also, I'm against people trying to change their God given bodies for purely superficial reasons.

I don't know what the JW

Oxy Mora — Wed, 18 May 2016 16:31:05 +0000

In reply to Thanks, I'm largely ignorant

I don't know what the JW practice is towards children being denied current state of the art medical treatment---which is where I draw the line, that is, adults can do as they please with their own lives.

I seem to remember instances where blood transfusions saved life by virtue of the antibodies which were introduced---the health workers in Africa who had contracted the ebola virus trying to minister to others dying horrible deaths from the disease. Or was that a story planted by the government?