Greedy mother abandons children for God
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
It is to bad she didn't want the transfusion but that is her right as an adult.
If it were her children then the state could step in and demand they be
given the transfusion. If people are that stupid to believe that death is
what their God wanted from them then so be it.
If it were her children then the state could step in and demand they be
given the transfusion. If people are that stupid to believe that death is
what their God wanted from them then so be it.
I think it's abhorrent that this woman's mind was so full of religious BS she would see her children live without their mother for the sake of her own peace of mind.
Show's just how twisted you have to be to truly believe.
Show's just how twisted you have to be to truly believe.
Cosmictraveler said:
I don't contest her right. In fact, it's fine with me. In the end, her religion acted as a form of natural selection, it seems.
But to think she's willing to leave her children without a mother in order to please God? Isn't that just a little greedy? And is that really what Jesus meant? I mean, not protecting a sibling who has murdered someone, I can understand. Turning in a child-molesting husband, I can understand. But this ... suffer the little children, indeed.
Last edited:
Exactly what in the bible prevents the acceptance of a blood transfusion? Outside of my usual healthy skepticism, I find it difficult to believe that a book that was written many centuries ago can be interpreted directly such that a blood transfusion procedure is listed as a sin.
Enterprise-D said:
Fair enough, but sort of beside the point. I mean, yeah. It's a great question. But it's a matter of faith. I don't care if it's the Bible or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever one chooses to believe, if it encourages them to such greed as to abandon your children, there's something amiss about it. There's nothing like scrabbling e'er closer to your reward over the burdens of suffering you've placed on your own children.
We've all seen what that kind of attitude does to children. And no wonder, what with the lessons it teaches.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
I don't accept the theist concept of an afterlife (this life is not a practice run) so the idea of hell is meaningless. But I would do anything for my children.
I figured you may have answered as such, and you're right of course...
But figuring it out, at least for me, requires the whole thought process...meaning the exact quote, and how they were able to deduce that biblical writers could come close to approximating a rule for an advanced medical procedure.
If we're speaking of a hypothetical "hell," then I would have to say yes. Since hell is a supernatural concept, I remind those posting in this thread that any preaching, sermons, or evangelizing involving the a priori acceptance that a hell actually exists may be deleted or edited without warning or explanation.
Perhaps more startling is the fact that the mother, so immersed in her religious delusion, would probably have willing protested the transfusion of blood to her children as well. Such child abuse is illegal in many states, but I think there are still those that can get away with abusing their children this way in the name of their religious beliefs.
There are certainly states where it is completely legal for parents to exempt themselves from vaccination due to religious belief, relying instead on the "herd" protection since a large enough percentage of the remaining population of children *are* vaccinated, protecting even the un-vaccinated ones. This population is increasingly in danger, however, since more and more "alternative/holistic medicine" nutters are using the "religious choice" exemption to keep their children from being vaccinated. They do so because of hysteria and fear propagated by idiots like Jenny McCarthy who make pseudoscientific claims about the "danger" of vaccination.
Perhaps more startling is the fact that the mother, so immersed in her religious delusion, would probably have willing protested the transfusion of blood to her children as well. Such child abuse is illegal in many states, but I think there are still those that can get away with abusing their children this way in the name of their religious beliefs.
There are certainly states where it is completely legal for parents to exempt themselves from vaccination due to religious belief, relying instead on the "herd" protection since a large enough percentage of the remaining population of children *are* vaccinated, protecting even the un-vaccinated ones. This population is increasingly in danger, however, since more and more "alternative/holistic medicine" nutters are using the "religious choice" exemption to keep their children from being vaccinated. They do so because of hysteria and fear propagated by idiots like Jenny McCarthy who make pseudoscientific claims about the "danger" of vaccination.
She didn't "abandon" her children, there are other family members to care for the child.
If she had died, even with all of the medical miracles available, would you still say that she "abandoned" her children ...by dying? Do mothers in Third World countries, without medical care, "abandon" their children if they die in childbirth?
I think, perhaps, tolerance of the beliefs of others is called for in situations like these. How can we ever get along with others if we refuse to allow them to believe as they chose? ...if we continually try to force others to believe as we believe?
Baron Max
I'm sorry, tolerance for such an irrational and illogical belief in a first world nation is not called for. I would no more advocate tolerance for her decision than I would female genital mutilation -which is also a religious custom among some who live in the United States.
People who are allowed to believe as they choose culminate their beliefs in detonating Ryder trucks full of fertilizer at Federal Buildings and blowing up abortion clinics and flying planes into skyscrapers.
People who are allowed to believe as they choose culminate their beliefs in detonating Ryder trucks full of fertilizer at Federal Buildings and blowing up abortion clinics and flying planes into skyscrapers.
Forcing beliefs? I hope you brought enough of whatever you're smoking for everybody.
Apply that principle to deadbeat parents.
No. I actually think the difference is quite obvious. There is a tremendous difference between general natural circumstance and an act of will.
I think you can tell the difference, Max.
Tolerance? Sure. Forcing beliefs? Why raise the issue? I'll tolerate her religion a lot longer, say, than I would the woman who bludgeoned her children to death because she thought God told her to. But one of the keys of this tragedy is the late mother's act of will.
Her children will suffer without her, but at least she gets to go to heaven. Wouldn't that just suck for her if there was enough of an afterlife for her to figure out that she was wrong? You know, like that South Park episode where they all get to heaven and find out that the Mormons were the only ones with the right religion?
I think it's a curious proposition. I'd go to Hell for my daughter. And unlike the Savior this poor mother was trying to impress, I would make the trip with no return ticket if that's what it came down to. Obviously, this woman had different priorities.
Apply that principle to deadbeat parents.
No. I actually think the difference is quite obvious. There is a tremendous difference between general natural circumstance and an act of will.
I think you can tell the difference, Max.
Tolerance? Sure. Forcing beliefs? Why raise the issue? I'll tolerate her religion a lot longer, say, than I would the woman who bludgeoned her children to death because she thought God told her to. But one of the keys of this tragedy is the late mother's act of will.
Her children will suffer without her, but at least she gets to go to heaven. Wouldn't that just suck for her if there was enough of an afterlife for her to figure out that she was wrong? You know, like that South Park episode where they all get to heaven and find out that the Mormons were the only ones with the right religion?
I think it's a curious proposition. I'd go to Hell for my daughter. And unlike the Savior this poor mother was trying to impress, I would make the trip with no return ticket if that's what it came down to. Obviously, this woman had different priorities.
Notes from the BIble (and the Watchtower)
If we ask the Watchtower Society, Watchtower Society the case starts at Acts 15.28-29.
The phrase also occurs in 15.20, and again at 21.25; the former is when the apostles decide to write a letter; the latter when they recount what they wrote. 15.29 describes the letter itself.
The reference looks back to Leviticus 17.14, which, obviously, speaks nothing of transfusions:
Ah, I also missed Leviticus 17.11-12. My bad. But this isn't much of a health argument. As the Watchtower Society notes:
Scripturally, it seems a weak case. But that's the thing: it doesn't necessarily matter if there is a scriptural precedent. I see this choice made without rational foundation to refuse treatment that might save one's life, a surrender to "God's will", in order to buy a ticket into heaven.
Interestingly, though, it occurs to me that I'm probably being too hard on her because one of the analogies I came up with is if you truly believed that destroying yourself by committing suicide would get you some divine reward ... and then it struck me that the rest of that sentence would be, "... you'd need severe psychiatric help."
Only problem is that we're not supposed to talk about redemptive monotheistic religious faith as a mental illness.
Perhaps I should have tried that as a topic title: "Religious delusion leaves newborn twins without mother".
Or, to be more politically correct about it: "Brave woman chooses death over motherhood".
There we go. Sounds better, eh?
Enterprise-D said:
If we ask the Watchtower Society, Watchtower Society the case starts at Acts 15.28-29.
The phrase also occurs in 15.20, and again at 21.25; the former is when the apostles decide to write a letter; the latter when they recount what they wrote. 15.29 describes the letter itself.
The reference looks back to Leviticus 17.14, which, obviously, speaks nothing of transfusions:
Ah, I also missed Leviticus 17.11-12. My bad. But this isn't much of a health argument. As the Watchtower Society notes:
Scripturally, it seems a weak case. But that's the thing: it doesn't necessarily matter if there is a scriptural precedent. I see this choice made without rational foundation to refuse treatment that might save one's life, a surrender to "God's will", in order to buy a ticket into heaven.
Interestingly, though, it occurs to me that I'm probably being too hard on her because one of the analogies I came up with is if you truly believed that destroying yourself by committing suicide would get you some divine reward ... and then it struck me that the rest of that sentence would be, "... you'd need severe psychiatric help."
Only problem is that we're not supposed to talk about redemptive monotheistic religious faith as a mental illness.
Perhaps I should have tried that as a topic title: "Religious delusion leaves newborn twins without mother".
Or, to be more politically correct about it: "Brave woman chooses death over motherhood".
There we go. Sounds better, eh?
If a person sees a certain portion of scripture (Already posted) and decided that that means they must abstain from blood then so be it. People have been free in this society to refuse medical treatment for a very long time. Forced medical treatment is an abuse of ones personal freedoms.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Adstar said:
I think we can all agree on that in this case. I don't think it's even an issue.
Rather, I refer you to the question in the topic post, in consideration of the verses from Matthew and Luke: Is this what Jesus meant?
I suppose that's one of the upshots of not being a Christian: I don't ever have to choose between going to heaven and loving my daughter.
I don't see how she was selfish.
She lives in a religious community so there are plenty of people to look after her children.
These aren't the kind of people who greedily cling on to life.
She lives in a religious community so there are plenty of people to look after her children.
These aren't the kind of people who greedily cling on to life.
DeepThought said:
I might be able to accept the theory that one's mother is, in fact, worthless, but I can't.
Okay, that's a harsh way to put it. But I think you're reaching.
After all, if I compare two forms of alleged greed--
• Leaving your children without a mother in order to please God and get into Heaven
• Having a blood transfusion to save your life so that you might nurture, educate, raise, and love your children
• Having a blood transfusion to save your life so that you might nurture, educate, raise, and love your children
--only one of them strikes me as greedy. And it ain't loving your children.
Last edited:
Tiassa,
Her refusal of a blood transfusion wasn't a calculated strategy to avoid the hassle and responsibility of raising her children - if it was you are quite right she was selfish and incredibly stupid.
Neither is there enough evidence, I think, for believing she did it solely to 'please God and get into Heaven'.
I'm trying to think of an analogy, perhaps something like this: someone tries to make you do something you consider wrong, for example, committing a homophobic attack on a gay person. You object and refuse to take part no matter how much they insist. The consequences for you are relatively slight... you walk away with your integrity intact and a gay person out there has been saved a beating.
The consequence for Emma Gough refusing to do something she believed was wrong was death.
It was a price she was willing to pay.
Would you pay that price to prevent a wrong being committed?
Does that make her a selfish, religious fanatic or a martyr?
It makes her selfish and a religous fanatic.
Her motivation for doing this was only to ensure her salvation according to her beliefs. What else could it be?
In other words save your own butt and disregard the needs of your children