The Not Happy Thread

I was screamed at several times yesterday at work and I don't see tonight being any better. On top of that, my boss screwed up the schedule tomorrow because she decided to help two others get the weekend off. This leaves one person working tomorrow night and that's bullshit.

I'm not looking forward to stepping inside in a few minutes because I don't know what'll be waiting and I've already had a meltdown from the stress.

 

I guess that's fair, let's go Mashers idea, child dies the parents go on trial. Even by Christian standards it is wrong to let this child die when there are means to save it.

These two parents are clearly incompetent, religious or not.

 

Hospital documents mention this particular religion specifically, because this is a common issue with members of this faith, since religious doctrine prohibits blood transfusions.

 

That's not so bad @Iain Aschendale - I've also taken flack for the lavatory light, and likewise the seat - I'd bank that one, and it's probably not a sign she hates your face. Maybe she needs a stay in hospital?

 

I hope you're not serious.

Of course it is abuse.

 

So what's there "Logic" against blood transfusions?

 

what do you think?

Any fool would let their child die, is clearly incompetent, and borderline abuse at the least

 

There's are Bible verses (which I've just looked up):

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” EXPLANATION: This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.

Leviticus 17:14. “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” EXPLANATION: God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.

Acts 15:20. “Abstain . . . from blood.” EXPLANATION: God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.

So they take the prohibitions on ingesting blood and apply it to transfusions as basically being another way to take blood into the body.

 

It would make a great story for the JH market - the escaping from the state and the troopers - and racing to the mountains and the baby dying in the clearing in the forest and God's blessing breaking through the clouds. With guns, and some dead liberals/lawyers also.

 

On top of what @Steerpike mentions, apparently in the 60s two official publications stated that the recipient of a blood transfusion will receive the negative traits of the donor. One featured the anecdotal evidence of a recipient who claimed that after his procedure he had an otherwise inexplicable urge to steal.

 

What does any of that have to do with a blood transfusion?

 

I am at a lost for words at the moment, I need to get back to you on this. LOL. Thankfully, I grew up in a house hold that did not adhere to the Bible. Assuming that everything is meant to control and manipulate people, it's hard to tell what to trust. plus that is old testament scriptures, we Christians got a pass thanks to J.C. .4

I feel that was in the person the entire time, and he just used the Transfusion as an excuse, though I have a feeling that is a No Shit moment.


When I was young, my mother had blood drawn from me to use as a blood Transfusion for me after operations, which was based on fears of getting blood transmitted diseases. I have never had an actually blood transfusion from someone else so I cannot atest to this.

 

Apparently they count IVs as a form of consumption.

 

Really dude!!!

 

Well it does specifically say "eat". So unless these parents think that's how a blood transfusion works, I really can't understand their objection.

 

Well, you can consume drugs through a needle... so..... not necessarily wrong... but also they are incompetent.

 

First error, is putting logic where there is no logic.

 

Indeed.

 

Since personality is tied to psychology (which boils down to the nervous system) and not the circulatory system, I think it's pretty safe to call bs on the theory.

 

There's no point just 'indicating' that Jehovah's Witnesses are 'stupid' or 'idiots.' Theirs is a long-held position of the belief-system, covered in soaps and law schools the world over.

 

Letting a baby die may be hell on the parents, but it's even worse for, you know, the baby. Not really natural selection considering the baby isn't doing anything, and cannot do anything, to have "earned" this fate. The regret/mourning for the parents is not worth a human life. Hell, even if they go to prison for life, I don't agree that a life is worth that.

 

It doesn't. It's directed to ingestion of blood, I believe. But this religion interprets those passages, in the context of modern medicine, as having the same applicability to taking blood into the body in any way whatsoever.

 

The belief about consuming blood is longstanding, but declaring transfusions to be a form thereof was added to the doctrine in 1945. As far as religious doctrine goes it's very young.

@Zerotonin would you call it 'survival of the fittest' then?

As far as this debate goes, any parent who chooses dogma over their child doesn't deserve to be called a parent in my book. If they would rather their child die than be excommunicated (the penalty for breaking this rule) then they are a danger to that child.

 

Exactly

Jehovah Witnesses are the worst! I think they're the one group that is universally disliked by everyone else, and possibly their own fellow members.

I could get really political on this one, but I won't. Just keep in mind of a very cynical person!

Yeah, it's ridiculous to not take advantage of modern advancements. That's why they're there,