@secondsonsaid you don't see how abortion, whether for religious reasons or not, isn't the greatest wholesale child sacrificing practice going on in the world today.
Terminating pregnancies is not "child sacrifice" in the same sense as religious "child sacrifice" of offspring up to the age of 17 [or whatever the age limit is for parental rights with regard to the medical treatment of their children].
I think you can surely see this is true without compromising your stance on abortion.
Indeed, I would have thought you'd need to agree with [about the issue of letting children die for want of medical treatment for religious reasons] in order for you to be consistent in your principled approach to the sanctity of life.
@fmfsaid Letting a child die to either [1] please God or [2] not to anger God is "child sacrifice"; it's the death of a child in order to supposedly obey God. It is done in order to comply with religious rules in an effort to be "saved". Don't be squeamish about calling a spade a spade.
That's the problem with religion. Religion is the doing of something in an "effort to be saved".
The God of the Bible abhors child sacrifice. Characterizing God in any other way defies reason. (Not saying you did that)
@secondsonsaid That's the problem with religion. Religion is the doing of something in an "effort to be saved".
The God of the Bible abhors child sacrifice. Characterizing God in any other way defies reason. (Not saying you did that)
But, with no-blood-transfusions being a Christian doctrine adhered to by a particular group of Christians based on a Bible verse, it is supposedly "objectively true". So there we have it.
@fmfsaid Terminating pregnancies is not "child sacrifice" in the same sense as religious "child sacrifice" of offspring up to the age of 17 [or whatever the age limit is for parental rights with regard to the medical treatment of their children].
I think you can surely see this is true without compromising your stance on abortion.
I'll have to disagree with you. Abortion is sacrificing a child. Of course there's no god involved, so it can't be said it's done for religious reasons, but the aborted baby is indeed a sacrifice.
I believe that anyone that would refuse medical treatment to save their child's life is effectively engaged in a form of abortion, so in that sense it's a sacrifice.
But to characterize that sacrifice as a sacrifice to God is taking it too far. It's irrational.
@secondsonsaid I'll have to disagree with you. Abortion is sacrificing a child. Of course there's no god involved, so it can't be said it's done for religious reasons, but the aborted baby is indeed a sacrifice.
That's right, abortion is not religious "child sacrifice".
Indeed, I would have thought you'd need to agree with [about the issue of letting children die for want of medical treatment for religious reasons] in order for you to be consistent in your principled approach to the sanctity of life.
Allowing a child to die for want of medical treatment is diametrically opposed to my "principled approach to the sanctity of life."
What father or mother would not seek all available medical treatment to save their child's life?
A JW apparently. For bogus religious reasons. There is no biblical basis for it.
@fmfsaid I am not discussing any "God" with you. You and I are discussing a religious doctrine and ideology.
This thread outlines the idea that JW's sacrifice there children to God, and to the God of the Bible at that.
I've clearly said the JW's base their belief in refusing to allow a life saving medical treatment for their children on an erroneous understanding of both the Bible and the God of the Bible.
The discussion about God is part and parcel of the topic of religious doctrine and ideology relative to the discourse in this thread.
@fmfsaid Well, they do have their Biblical basis for the forbidding of blood transfusions, actually, so it's your interpretation against theirs, I suppose.
You can suppose that, but I assure you that the JW's interpretation and/or mine is not the issue.
It stands to reason that withholding medical treatment for a child that can save his life based on a biblical "interpretation" that demands religious observance only serves to prove their interpretation is erroneous. It's even heretical.
@divegeestersaid This OP is intended to firstly reopen some debate on religious child sacrifice, in particular the Jehovah’s Witness practice of permitting a child to die rather than allow a blood transfusion to be given. I assume we are all fundamentally opposed to child sacrifice and would stand against any religion expecting its adherents to follow such practices...???
Hmm, on that ...[text shortened]... t, any sub points, principled posting even...
@fmfsaid Well, they do have their Biblical basis for the forbidding of blood transfusions, actually, so it's your interpretation against theirs, I suppose.
You have a view about abortion or are those deaths, justified in your opinion?