# Such a sad waste of life



## The Silver Surfer (May 14, 2002)

Two children are going to grow up without their mother. All for the sake of religion!  

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 427045.ece

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 078455.stm


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

Agreed - hopefully the kids will be told why their Mother died, but no doubt it will be glorified by the brainwashing process.

All religion is retarded - after all it was/is, spread/manipulated, to create control and subsequently bastardised for exploitation.


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

The Silver Surfer said:


> Two children are going to grow up without their mother. All for the sake of religion!
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... 427045.ece
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 078455.stm


What a waste, and all for some daft religion :?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

I read this in the paper today how can some one think that there god would want them to let them self die after just having 2 babys and if that was the case then there god is a very very sick one :evil:


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

It makes you wonder how faith gets a hold on people


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Generally speaking religions state we shouldnt be shit to each other and then people take them and go around being extremely shit to each other because they all disagree how we should go around *not * being shit to each other. Go figure. :?

Religion, cack. People, cack. Combine the two, bloody great piles of, you guessed it, cack.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Wonder if they were her first borns. How many parents here would consciously and deliberately leave their children father/motherless for the sake of their beliefs? Once you have had kids I believe you would do anything to keep them safe and not leave them without a parent.

Perhaps that is just my belief... :?


----------



## Major Problem (Jan 9, 2007)

I usually try to shy away from commenting on religious issues, but this idea of consumption/transfusion of blood angers me.

Many of the religious texts give advice on what should and shouldn't be eaten, and in the majority of cases there are sound health reasons that could back up those statements, for example the similarity between pig and human infections and possible cross contamination could lead to an avoidance of consuming pigmeat etc. These texts were written MANY years before transfusions were possible, and this girl died because of a perverted interpretation of the text, NOT because Jehovah said she had to.

It's the nature of the interpreter that determines the course of many of the world's religions, particularly worrying in times such as these when it seems important to have Allah/God/??? onside simply to justify chosen actions.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Faith, religion & beliefs - they are all very personal. That is the way they should remain!


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

We used to get them around every so often - I needed a blood transfusion at birth and have given blood so by their rules I'm fooked.

So sad though - but they were both Jehovahs Witnesses so it was their choice. Its the innocent babies that will probably suffer the most.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Very very sad and so young to die.


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

im speechless, i blame the family and her husband....................... its his own bloody fault, ok she would have been pissed off with him but hey, she would have been alive and the kids would have a mother.

surely thats more inportant than beliefs :?


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Conversely - If someone is seriously/terminally ill, it is illegal to choose euthanasia.

So why can this woman who could in all probability be brought back to full health choose euthanasia?

SICK! [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Unfortunately religion tends to feed on the weaker in society, not the less intelligent, simply those haven't built up a reliable model of the world and their place in it in their own minds. The power vacuum in the mind may be taken over by anything that appears to offer a sense to everything. In reality nothing much has a sense per se and hence this space gets filled with twisted nonsense. As Leg says people fight over slightly different interpretations of what someone who never existed didn't say. This case is particularly upsetting because a young mother thought more of her own afterlife than the happiness and upbringing of her children. As such I find her selfishness remarkable, perhaps her children are better off without her!


----------



## Lock_Stock (May 22, 2007)

In case people were wondering the answer is..... "God works in mysterious ways"..... It is primarily because we are unable to concieve of Gods great plan that we assume her refusing blood and dying was a bad thing.

God may know that her influence on the upbringing of those kids may lead to 2 new Hitlers....... Where as without her they will mearly be a couple of bible bashers knocking on my door disturbing saturday lunch...


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Sorry, but I'm totally on her side regarding this.

It's her life, it's her decision. Yes it affects other people, but then so too do the decisions of people to involve themselves in dangerous activities knowing full well they could die in the process and leave their kids mother/father less.

Where I don't agree, is when their children are ill and would need a blood transfusion and they then refuse. The kids aren't old enough (many times) to understand what's going on, and when they are old enough, I'm sure that given the choice, they'd probably prefer to live.

Sad, yes, but the ultimate sacrifice for your beliefs.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

If you have a strong belief and you go against it what do you have left in life?


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

Kell said:


> Sad, yes, but the ultimate sacrifice for your beliefs.


Utterly selfish IMO, religion (or the interpretation of it) is responsible for most of the problems in the world today.

Religion should keep up with modern life and adapt to the current circumstances.

That stupid woman has now left a husband and 2 new born babies on their own for no other reason than an excerpt from the bible that was written well before any one could ever think that what we do now was possible, a Blood Transfusion is no where near drinking the stuff

And what were other Jehova witnesses doing at the birth? Waiting to get their hands on the babies I suspect :evil:


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

I was married to a Marc who was haemophiliac, and I'd often come home to find JWs perched on the edge of the sofa. He used to invite them in to discuss their beliefs and they used to wish they hadn't! He used to keep them talking for hours. They would be desperate to leave :lol:

Ultimately, the blood that saved him also killed him


----------



## joe1978 (Jul 15, 2003)

mighTy Tee said:


> Conversely - If someone is seriously/terminally ill, it is illegal to choose euthanasia.
> 
> So why can this woman who could in all probability be brought back to full health choose euthanasia?
> 
> SICK! [smiley=sick2.gif]


This is an interesting point, could a religon be "established" which believes in god and the prevention of unbearable suffering so a person can meet his/her maker in peace? If the law is that proctective of such religious beliefs then why not?

Religion can be a good thing it is the unfortunate misinterpretation by ALL churches that creates the worries of the world.

Kevin Smiths Dogma...

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.

Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?

Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

joe


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

One less JW trying to convert others to their wonderful faith. :idea:

Just possibly the kids will, in the fullness of time, reject JW and the faith that cost them a mother.

So there may be another two less JWs.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

mighTy Tee said:


> Conversely - If someone is seriously/terminally ill, it is illegal to choose euthanasia.
> 
> So why can this woman who could in all probability be brought back to full health choose euthanasia?
> 
> SICK! [smiley=sick2.gif]


I guess it's the same as when hospitals take the decision to not resus patients. It's not actively helping them to do, but it's helping them to die by doing nothing to save them. It's a fine line, but, crucially, a legal one.

If your life is based on your beliefs, no matter how stupid, so long as those beliefs don't physically harm other people how can other people (ie us, or doctors) force our beliefs on that person?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it's sensible to believe what the JW's believe, but I will always defend their right to believe it.

OT: Of course it's a shame having said all that, that they try and force their beliefs on us.


----------



## Lock_Stock (May 22, 2007)

Kell said:


> mighTy Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Conversely - If someone is seriously/terminally ill, it is illegal to choose euthanasia.
> ...


I do agree with what you are saying and defending our rights for freedom to believe what we want is important.... but....

Imagine a man who knocks on peoples doors and tells them there are little green men living in the trees that control everything and if you don't play by their rules you will burn in hell. He does this all the time with most people he meets, convinced these little green men exist and refuses to believe any refuting facts. Imagine this man is in a car accident, he tells the doctor he believes in little green men who control the world and for that reason he will not accept a blood transfusion, because the little green men would not want him to..... what would happen here?

The doctors would say that he is having a psychotic episode, is not in a fit state to judge what is best for him and would enforce the transfusion to save his life.

I'm not contradicting what you are saying, more agreeing with it. I think it is a fine line between belief and madness sometimes.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

I basically believe people should have the choice on whether to live or die when life is incurable, and a decision to terminate life prematurely because the "quality of life" for the remaining time is near zero should be allowed.

However in this case, this woman has IMO been selfish and deprived her children of a mother.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Lock_Stock said:


> Imagine this man is in a car accident, he tells the doctor he believes in little green men who control the world and for that reason he will not accept a blood transfusion, because the little green men would not want him to..... what would happen here?
> 
> The doctors would say that he is having a psychotic episode, is not in a fit state to judge what is best for him and would enforce the transfusion to save his life.
> 
> I'm not contradicting what you are saying, more agreeing with it. I think it is a fine line between belief and madness sometimes.


Well, I guess that seeing as all surgery is elective, then the person involved would then not agree to sign the consent form for the surgery involved and there would be nothing the hospital could do.

:?

For some reason, Doctors always seem to want to save people that, tbh, could really do with not being saved. Not saying that applies in the original post, but it seems to be a natural reaction to always want to preserve life. Sometimes, it's not worth preserving.


----------



## Lock_Stock (May 22, 2007)

Kell said:


> Lock_Stock said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine this man is in a car accident, he tells the doctor he believes in little green men who control the world and for that reason he will not accept a blood transfusion, because the little green men would not want him to..... what would happen here?
> ...


This could turn into a very different debate than that raised by the OP.

Surgery is not always elective. If the person is considered non compos-mentis then the doctors will er on the side of caution and save the life (unless there is next of Kin of course), in which case they may have authority to make a decision.

As for some life not being worth saving? 
From a Doctors perspective they must, in the absence of clear guidlines to the contrary save life (clear guidlines being the law, religous beliefs, DNR etc....). I do not envy the position of Drs but it is not, and should not be their decision regarding who lives and who dies. I don't know whos decision it is, but not theirs. With something as precious as life surely it is better to be cautios. It sounds harsh, but is it better that some suffer for a short time to mitigate the risk of euthenising someone who could continue a happy productive life?

Like I say this could turn into a whole other discussion.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Lock_Stock said:


> Kell said:
> 
> 
> > Lock_Stock said:
> ...


I'm not arguing against you. Sometimes, Doctors must be put in a position where, against pretty much everything they stand for in their lives, they have to save the life of someone they would normally cross the road to avoid.

I kind of forgot to mention that in the absence of the person involved being able to make a decision for themselves, they'd just be operated on.


----------



## Calibos (Mar 28, 2004)

Yet another little gem from Leviticus.

Its funny how there are only a handful of commandments by leviticus that people actually choose to follow. The Anti Gay one by all religions, the blood one by the JW's and the anti spilling the seed/condom one by the the Catholics and Protestant evangelicals.

No one seems to worry about eternal damnation for planting two fileds with different crops side by side, or wearing a garment made of two different fibres or weaves etc

Anyway, President Bartlet said it so much better then myself


----------

