Re: For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtowe
Doktor S wrote:Would you, Neo, let your child die if a blood transfusion was the only method that might save his/her life?
This is obviously not an attack, but it has been puzzling me how you might rationalize this.
I'm very new to this forum and sorry I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, but when I read what "Doktor s" had to say I felt obligated to post. I'm angered by some of the justifications and excuses people make in the name of their religions, particularly when these impinge on the lives of innocents such as young children. There are no justifications that people can make for that rationale.
Over simplifying my beliefs.............people have a soul (the part that encompasses and defines the uniqueness of the individual - or if you prefer, the part that is capable of independent thinking and cognitive thoughts), and a body which is physical and therefore fragile.
Once an individual is mentally mature enough to make the decision not to have that sort of medical help to save their life then fair enough. However, babies, small children, and most young adults cannot make those decisions on an informed basis. More now is understood about the recycling of blood than ever before. My opinion about part of the basis that underlies this religious superstition, is that people believed that the blood that was replaced would stay in the body, thereby making the individual less of themselves. This is obviously only the tip of the iceberg, I know that it runs much deeper.
When I was born I had to have a full blood transfusion, without which I would almost certainly have died.
On a lighter note - Doktor S - how can you say you're a Satanist but that you don't have religion?