19 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeople have to die in agonising pain because it's 'simpler'. Nice one.
Now where's the dignity and humanity here? Why shouldn't she be allowed the option
of euthanasia?
you know how i feel about this my illustrious friend, no one has the right to take life, it
belongs to God, solely and exclusively. Now as you are a non believer, i do not expect
you to accept this, however, our position cannot be compromised, ...[text shortened]... wly die, flip sake, e are human
and conscious of suffering, but life is life and sacrosanct.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobnot because its simpler, but because it sets a precedent, if you start opening up
People have to die in agonising pain because it's 'simpler'. Nice one.
euthanasia, it will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis, this presents all sorts
of difficulties, for as you are aware, health professionals can be swayed by any
number of factors!
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy life belongs to me, mine and mine alone. I have the right to self-determination.
Now where's the dignity and humanity here? Why shouldn't she be allowed the option
of euthanasia?
you know how i feel about this my illustrious friend, no one has the right to take life, it
belongs to God, solely and exclusively. Now as you are a non believer, i do not expect
you to accept this, however, our position cannot be compromised, ...[text shortened]... wly die, flip sake, e are human
and conscious of suffering, but life is life and sacrosanct.
So essentially your stance on euthanasia is because 'that's what some unknown desert tribesman wrote'?! This a classic case of fundamentalism rearing it's ugly head.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt may present difficulties, but so what? Surely that's better than people having to suffer agonising pain.
not because its simpler, but because it sets a precedent, if you start opening up
euthanasia, it will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis, this presents all sorts
of difficulties, for as you are aware, health professionals can be swayed by any
number of factors!
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobits termed a Biblical principle and for your information, the Bible was written by Kings
My life belongs to me, mine and mine alone. I have the right to self-determination.
So essentially your stance on euthanasia is because 'that's what some unknown desert tribesman wrote'?! This a classic case of fundamentalism rearing it's ugly head.
and judges, as well as humble fishermen and fig dressers, not that it makes a
difference, a principle is a principle.
yes you have the right to claim self determination and if it would make you happy i
wish that the government will introduce legislation according to your wishes, but , by
the same token, outr stance should also be respected.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBiblical principle or not, it was written by the same people who decreed that homosexuals be put to death. That children who answer back to their parents be put to death. That villages guilty of apostasy be slaughtered and burnt to the ground and on and on.
its termed a Biblical principle and for your information, the Bible was written by Kings
and judges, as well as humble fishermen and fig dressers, not that it makes a
difference, a principle is a principle.
yes you have the right to claim self determination and if it would make you happy i
wish that the government will introduce legislation according to your wishes, but , by
the same token, outr stance should also be respected.
As for you stance, sure, if you want to believe what some Bronze Age person wrote down and refuse blood transfusions that's your choice, you're a grown adult.
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were
Biblical principle or not, it was written by the same people who decreed that homosexuals be put to death. That children who answer back to their parents be put to death. That villages guilty of apostasy be slaughtered and burnt to the ground and on and on.
As for you stance, sure, if you want to believe what some Bronze Age person wrote down and refuse blood transfusions that's your choice, you're a grown adult.
never intended to be binding anyway, merely like scaffolding upon a building, once the
building was complete, they were removed, so your objections on this basis are
unfounded!
Some bronze age person? My man, Solomon's wisdom as well as his wealth,
patronage of the arts remains unsurpassed, even to this very day! You seems to have
a strangely distorted view of ancient civilisations.
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were never intended to be binding anyway
yes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were
never intended to be binding anyway, merely like scaffolding upon a building, once the
building was complete, they were removed, so your objections on this basis are
unfounded!
Some bronze age person? My man, Solomon's wisdom as well as his wealth,
patronag ...[text shortened]... ven to this very day! You seems to have
a strangely distorted view of ancient civilisations.
Blaspheny was still punishable my death in this country until 1697. That's nearly 3,000 years after the law was written.
Solomon's wisdom as well as his wealth, patronage of the arts remains unsurpassed, even to this very day!
Says who? The Bible?!
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes, but that is the secular authorities, they did not understand anything about the
[b]yes indeed, but as time passed, these draconian laws became obsolete, as they were never intended to be binding anyway
Blaspheny was still punishable my death in this country until 1697. That's nearly 3,000 years after the law was written.[/b]
Christ, still dont. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in Pakistan and has been used
against the Christian minority in cases of local feud.
says the Queen of Sheba, herself a regent of an astonishing civilisation. Anyone
looking at the ancient eastern civilisations knows that they were anything but brutish
and 'bronze age'.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou would have thought an omniscient God who have seen that one coming.
yes, but that is the secular authorities, they did not understand anything about the
Christ, still dont. Blasphemy is still punishable by death in Pakistan and has been used
against the Christian minority in cases of local feud.
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes indeed, but because one sees something coming, does not mean that one has
You would have thought an omniscient God who have seen that one coming.
made no provision, does it, the present human system perpetuates itself to
demonstrate the now incontrovertible truth, humans are not better off as a result of
seeking independence from God and that ultimately, human rule has failed.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you have children?
yes indeed, but because one sees something coming, does not mean that one has
made no provision, does it, the present human system perpetuates itself to
demonstrate the now incontrovertible truth, humans are not better off as a result of
seeking independence from God and that ultimately, human rule has failed.
If so, and one were hit by a car, could you honestly tell me you would refuse a blood transfusion to save his/her life, in this day and age?
Would you really permit that refusal?
Answer me in TRUTH!
-m.
19 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomyou have already called me a liar and have not apologised when it was demonstrated
Do you have children?
If so, and one were hit by a car, could you honestly tell me you would refuse a blood transfusion to save his/her life, in this day and age?
Would you really permit that refusal?
Answer me in TRUTH!
-m.
to you, from a publicly maintained third part source that it has been our official policy
since 2000 not to charge for literature, secondly as your are quite obviously ignorant of
anything other than your own prejudices, parents have no jurisdiction over minors in
the case of blood transfusion, UK law, you might in future want to research your topic
prior to typing, God knows it will save me the bother of having to repeat the same
things again and again and of you expressing your ignorance.
Truth is not a word i associate with your posts, more like a kind of emotional tabloid
sensationalism, kind of like reading the Sun newspaper, you know its content is nill,
yet, trash sells, as this latest effort also purports to be.
19 Dec 11
Originally posted by mikelomHe is a slave of the Watchtower Society and must allow his child to die,
Do you have children?
If so, and one were hit by a car, could you honestly tell me you would refuse a blood transfusion to save his/her life, in this day and age?
Would you really permit that refusal?
Answer me in TRUTH!
-m.
if necessary, to prove his loyalty to them. It matters not what God
said ,but what the Watchtower Society says God said. Get it?
19 Dec 11
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsmore trash talk, just because your a pumpkin eater! Tell me RJH, what is it about,
He is a slave of the Watchtower Society and must allow his child to die,
if necessary, to prove his loyalty to them. It matters not what God
said ,but what the Watchtower Society says God said. Get it?
'parents have no jurisdiction over their children in cases of blood transfusion, according
to UK law', that yet evades you? Are the words too long? their meanings obscure?
why are you stating that i shall allow my child to die when the law states that if a
consultant wishes to give my child a blood transfusion, they may do so? Is it normal
for you to make accusations of this kind , in the face of incontrovertible
evidence to the contrary? Why would you do that? what kind of person would slander
someone in this way? How many children have i killed in this way RJH, do tell.