Friday, August 17, 2007

Is it possible to disagree about religion without calling names?

From a comment on a previous post:

your own child you would be willing to sacrifice to make a religious point.

To me, that is religious fanaticism.


Throughout the ages, people have been willing to die for their beliefs -- and yes, to allow their children to die also. I wouldn't call someone a religious fanatic simply because I disagree with them. To me a fanatic is willing to have someone over whom they should have NO control or responsibility die for their beliefs. Religious wars through the ages, some of the current terrorist acts, and many of the deaths during the Inquisition fall under that heading.

I am responsible to my God for my children. They are gifts from Him and I must answer to him for choices I make in raising them.

I realize that other people do not consider embryonic stem cell research to be evil. I believe that it requires destroying a living human. I would no more accept for myself or my child the results of that research than I would accept a donor heart from a living, breathing fully functioning human being (we're not talking brain death, here).

As I stated in a comment to that prior post. To me, the difference between the Jehovah's Witness believe about the proven benefits of transfusion and my belief about any theoretical benefit of embryonic stem cell research is that nobody dies when they donate blood. The rest is very much about our responsibility to God as we understand Him. I respectfully disagree with their position on blood transfusion, but I would not call them fanatics.

I also believe that our focus should be on the already successful cord blood stem cells and adult stem cells. That research has been beneficial already and should be expanded.

5 comments:

cal said...

To me a fanatic is willing to have someone over whom they should have NO control or responsibility die for their beliefs.

And you think you have the Right to say that your child should or should not die?

You are so concerned about the rights of unborn children, what about the rights of those already born?

You do NOT have the right to say that your child should live or die.
Because if I give you that right, if the courts or the medical system give you That Right (sic) then why should any other person say whether their child has the right to live or die under different circumstances?

Even GOD himself, according to the bible is NOT pleased with child sacrifice.
It does not make Him happy.

So why would your sacrifice please God?

Because that is exactly what you would be doing.

cal said...

I am responsible to my God for my children. They are gifts from Him and I must answer to him for choices I make in raising them.


This is the exact same reasoning that other religions use to back up their treatment of children, for better or worse.

You wouldn't call the Jehovah's Witnesses religious fanatics, I wonder why....

Genevieve said...

If it means anything, I agree with you completely and would also not consent to life-saving treatment for myself or my children (or husband if he could not consent - and he agrees) if the treatment came from fetal stem cells (non-cord blood). It is the same reason that my children will never receive the chicken pox vaccine (or rabies, God forbid) as both contain aborted fetal tissue. Our family is not willing to save one of us at the expense of the viable life of another.

Judy said...

Cal,
Child sacrifice? That's an interesting thing to call the rejection of technology with only theoretical benefit.

No, I don't believe that I have the right to decide whether my child should or should not die. I only have the right to decide which medical treatments he or she should have. I reject those treatments which require the destruction of human embryos. God will decide whether my child will live or die.

If you read much at all about the court decisions in regard to health care decisions involving children, you'd know that courts do not always find in favor of the system. Parents are allowed to reject medical treatments - even in situations where those treatments have a possibility of changing the outcome of a disease.

As for why I wouldn't call the JW's fanatics, I thought I made that clear. They aren't trying to impose their beliefs on people outside their faith. They do try to evangelize to others, but that's not the same thing.

Judy said...

Healthy children are usually better off if they actually get chicken pox rather than the vaccine. Who knows how many young adults will get chicken pox after vaccination as children - and chicken pox is much more dangerous in adults.

I have good news for you about the rabies vaccine. One brand, called Rabavert is made from chick embryo cells, not the human diploid cells (cell lines from aborted fetuses) used in many other vaccines.

Insistence on ethical vaccine production encourages the companies to consider different options.