This one's iffy.

On one hand, I think the government was right in taking the babies, but that's only because what they did goes along with my morals and I think a lot of religions are absolutely ridiculous.

But . . . on the other hand, I can symphasize with the parents. What if the government took me away and forced me to have an abortion because my child was going to have Downs Syndrome? I wouldn't want that to happen.

So I don't know where I stand on this one. Buh.

Your analogy is wrong. Your analogy is the opposite of what is happening.

The Murdering Parents wanted to deny their innocent child needed medical care because God told them so.

The pesky interfering government doesn't want people killing their baby's even if God deems it should be done.

They aren't trying to prevent a death or an abortion, they are trying to prevent a murder.

I think it was 2manyusernames that said it best: Freedom of religion does not mean freedom of religious "practice".

You can have religious thought, teach and learn about a religion, but that does not mean that every aspect can be practised, especially if it is against the law.

In this case, the Canadian government had to intervene (spelling?) to halt a clear case of neglect.

Oh and imnotyoo, the example you gave is not equal to the acts shown here (more the opposite). This is a case of life and death, for the protection of the health of the babies.

No, I understand, I promise :) I don't think you got the point of my analogy. I understand that the situations are very different (saving a live vs taking one), but in both situations, the person feels horribly wronged by the government.

All I was saying is that I can symphasize with the parents, even though I disagree with their morals.

(I'm sorry I couldn't come up with a situation more like what's going on with that family. I would never purposely jepordize the health of my child and that was the best example I could come up with. Basically, the parent's morals clash with that of the government's and they are being forced to do something they believe is wrong)

---

Those kids are going to grow up and find all this out and be like, "What?! You were going to just let me die!!?"

Im a happy to hear the gov't is stepping in - and I never thought I'd hear myself say that.

However its truly sad two innocents had to be lost before they did.

It is a shame and a crime that the parents won't be charged with murder or at least muder by neglect.

The religious aspect should mean nothing.

If you fail to give your kid medical care and they die, than you should be held responsible.

Period. End of story. If you don't give him medical care because you'd rather go to vegas is just as bad and the exact same thing if you fail to give your child medical care because the planets are not in the correct allignment or any other such nonsense.

I agree with 2many, at least in the United States, there is something called Criminally Negligent Homicide.

I really think that these situations should bring about a rethinking, if you will, by the Governing Body (the JW's leadership) about their refusal of whole blood transfusions. They may have trouble with that because the argument that I would use is that the words from the bible that they give, meant a different thing when they were written. They could immediately argue that God gave them those words, and they were designed to account for future advances in medical technology.
and
Those things were written when it was common practice to sacrifice humans and animals and use their blood in the religious ceremonies of the day. 'Eateth' has a connotation of forcibly taking, as well as of ingesting through the mouth, not taking intravenously. You might also notice that it says to "abstain from ... fornication ...". They are leaving out that that part of scripture has to do with those things in connection to religious ceremonies, not survival.

TBF, how does the Leviticus quote apply here? Is that something JWs general quote to show why they believe blood transfusions are wrong? If so, it sounds more to me that God was telling them to cook their meat thouroughly...?

;)

Apparently you didn't live up to your name...

It's from the article.

No, I didn't read this one, as I didnt want to log in. I did thank Wingnut for changing the link so I wouldn't have to! :D