Thank you for addressing this complex subject. We live in a world where one size does not fit all. Pregnancy and childbearing with all its complexities are unique to each individual and their family. Does the Watchtower address abortion in cases of incest or child rape or does one size fit all? Certainly these are among the issues that should be left to individual families and their health care professionals. The Watchtower’s overreach into individual’s lives along with the threat of disfellowshipping has proven to be very destructive and leaves no room for personal decision making.
Incest if consensual, while disgusting, does not give anyone the right to murder the inbred child. If it was rape then it’s just rape and doesn’t need a special category.
Wait so, they’re aloud to do research. She did research?!!! I remember an older couple that had a child they would bring to every assembly. The child was a vegetable laying in a bed. Also, “god” murdered a child. So yeah. It was so hard for me to see as a child.
Yes a difficult subject indeed, Watchtower should realise that the person responsible for killing the most unborn babies is in fact Jehovah by a very very long way. The Jewish law also said an adulteress must be tortured to death by stoning or burning including any unborn baby, these facts always worried me. Also because Watchtower clearly teach the unborn are unique persons in their own right they are all due a resurrection, you cannot argue otherwise, this would literally result in perhaps 500 babies or more for every surviving JW (you do the maths)...that is a LOT of nappies.
Once again, “The Governing Body has decided…” Every situation should be carefully considered by the people involved. Your Bible trained conscience not WT
I think the problem Isn't the believers, but the source. The bible is just a bunch of ancient uninformed ideas. The bible delivers these ideas with gaslighting force.
@@elidan-dev well, thats a general question with a can of worms for a reply. I will keep this short. Historical references in the bible are incorrect., the order of appearance of life, incorrect. Astronomy, incorrect. And the rest is hyperbolic.
Absolutely. In the article Robin read, the Society mentioned that Doctor Luke used the same koíne Greek term to describe a fœtus as he used to describe a baby as though the medical understanding of human gestation has remained the same in the last two millenniums. The Society intentionally neglects to mention that medicine is a science constantly undergoing refinement and development in terms of research, application and practice. All of these are brought to bear in studying human sexuality and human development. We need think only of the breakthroughs in the fields of biology and genetics. For instance, one result has been the discovery of the human genome, which has led to new areas of research with regard to diseases. Furthermore, at the time the Bible was written and later canonized, the understanding of human gestation was very much beclouded by religion and the belief in some deity. Now, however, since the Renaissance and, particularly, since the Enlightenment, medical doctors have ostensibly been released from those shackles. One result of this has been the opening of the field of obstetrics. If, as the Society seems to be inferring from that mention of Luke, we are to limit our understanding of human gestation to the religious influence of ancient times, then there is no place for obstetricians in aiding women through gestation and delivery. The final two paragraphs of that article, however, are where we find the real marrow of the bone as regards the Society's position. "The past is prologue", as the saying goes. What the Society said earlier in this same article was meant merely to set up the reader for these last two paragraphs. The point in the penultimate paragraph, according to the Society, is that not even the health of either the woman or the fœtus justify a necessary abortion. The final paragraph, on the other hand, leaves it to the conscience of, if we're to go by the Society's view, the husband to decide at the moment of delivery whether to save his wife or the newborn baby. Both paragraphs are the identical position taken by Theocratic Republicans here in the United States. And the Society says that Jehovah's witnesses are supposed to be politically neutral! Taken together, what the Society is actually saying in those two paragraphs is that, under the influence of religion and of the belief in some deity, the fœtus is more important than is the woman upon which the fœtus is completely dependent during those nine months; but, following delivery, the resultant baby can fend for himself or herself, as far as the Society is concerned. On the contrary, during gestation, every effort should be made to save the woman when health is at risk. (The Society's use of the redundant adjective "potential" (in bold print no less) infers that the men in the Writing department don't care at all what any obstetrician has to say regarding the risks which, let's be honest, exist even in "normal" pregnancies.) This is because, during gestation, there is technically only the one life-that of the woman. The fœtus represents potential. (And that's where the Society should have used that adjective, if at all.) Upon delivery, however, every effort should be made to save both mother and child inasmuch as there are now two lives. This article is a prime example of how the Society is misogynistic to the core. The men at headquarters render lip service to recommending singleness. However, once married, those same men, like their counterparts amongst Theocratic Republicans, hold that sisters in the congregation are duty-bound to be pregnant and give birth every nine months concurrent with doing housework while their husbands are off attending to congregational matters and engaging in secular work. It's repressive and sickening. It's also yet one more reason-as though we needed another reason-for governments to crack down on the Society and the local congregations. Regrettably, in the wake of "Dobbs", we won't see that any time soon here in the United States.
The simple fact is, if a person reads the Bible, especially the O.T., properly, god has no issue with killing born, or unborn, children. God is only bothered when HE is not the one doing it directly or giving the order to do it.
Thank you for addressing this complex subject. We live in a world where one size does not fit all. Pregnancy and childbearing with all its complexities are unique to each individual and their family. Does the Watchtower address abortion in cases of incest or child rape or does one size fit all? Certainly these are among the issues that should be left to individual families and their health care professionals. The Watchtower’s overreach into individual’s lives along with the threat of disfellowshipping has proven to be very destructive and leaves no room for personal decision making.
I agree with you on these points mentioned in your comments. Thank you for your insights on this matter.
Incest if consensual, while disgusting, does not give anyone the right to murder the inbred child.
If it was rape then it’s just rape and doesn’t need a special category.
You explained this so well. Thank you so much Robin!
Thank you Mary.
Wait so, they’re aloud to do research.
She did research?!!!
I remember an older couple that had a child they would bring to every assembly.
The child was a vegetable laying in a bed.
Also, “god” murdered a child. So yeah.
It was so hard for me to see as a child.
We all know what research they are allowed to do. Only use the Watchtower's publications and website.
@@RobinJacksonZAIndeed! That video showed the sister going to only the Society's publications along with the Bible at Exodus 21:22,23.
"research": Read only what we at WT recommend, and decide what you want to as long as it agrees with the opinion we give you ahead of time.
Also from the video I saw that the “Grandparents” were represented as being Catholic.
Yes, I saw that too.
Yes a difficult subject indeed, Watchtower should realise that the person responsible for killing the most unborn babies is in fact Jehovah by a very very long way. The Jewish law also said an adulteress must be tortured to death by stoning or burning including any unborn baby, these facts always worried me.
Also because Watchtower clearly teach the unborn are unique persons in their own right they are all due a resurrection, you cannot argue otherwise, this would literally result in perhaps 500 babies or more for every surviving JW (you do the maths)...that is a LOT of nappies.
Absolutely. This topic is so nuanced. Thank you for your comments.
That is totally untrue. They do not believe even if the mothers life is at risk you cannot abort.
Hmm where’s “god” when you need him?…
Once again, “The Governing Body has decided…” Every situation should be carefully considered by the people involved. Your Bible trained conscience not WT
I think the problem Isn't the believers, but the source. The bible is just a bunch of ancient uninformed ideas. The bible delivers these ideas with gaslighting force.
what do you mean uninformed
@@elidan-dev well, thats a general question with a can of worms for a reply.
I will keep this short.
Historical references in the bible are incorrect., the order of appearance of life, incorrect. Astronomy, incorrect.
And the rest is hyperbolic.
Absolutely. In the article Robin read, the Society mentioned that Doctor Luke used the same koíne Greek term to describe a fœtus as he used to describe a baby as though the medical understanding of human gestation has remained the same in the last two millenniums. The Society intentionally neglects to mention that medicine is a science constantly undergoing refinement and development in terms of research, application and practice. All of these are brought to bear in studying human sexuality and human development. We need think only of the breakthroughs in the fields of biology and genetics. For instance, one result has been the discovery of the human genome, which has led to new areas of research with regard to diseases.
Furthermore, at the time the Bible was written and later canonized, the understanding of human gestation was very much beclouded by religion and the belief in some deity. Now, however, since the Renaissance and, particularly, since the Enlightenment, medical doctors have ostensibly been released from those shackles. One result of this has been the opening of the field of obstetrics. If, as the Society seems to be inferring from that mention of Luke, we are to limit our understanding of human gestation to the religious influence of ancient times, then there is no place for obstetricians in aiding women through gestation and delivery.
The final two paragraphs of that article, however, are where we find the real marrow of the bone as regards the Society's position. "The past is prologue", as the saying goes. What the Society said earlier in this same article was meant merely to set up the reader for these last two paragraphs. The point in the penultimate paragraph, according to the Society, is that not even the health of either the woman or the fœtus justify a necessary abortion. The final paragraph, on the other hand, leaves it to the conscience of, if we're to go by the Society's view, the husband to decide at the moment of delivery whether to save his wife or the newborn baby. Both paragraphs are the identical position taken by Theocratic Republicans here in the United States. And the Society says that Jehovah's witnesses are supposed to be politically neutral!
Taken together, what the Society is actually saying in those two paragraphs is that, under the influence of religion and of the belief in some deity, the fœtus is more important than is the woman upon which the fœtus is completely dependent during those nine months; but, following delivery, the resultant baby can fend for himself or herself, as far as the Society is concerned. On the contrary, during gestation, every effort should be made to save the woman when health is at risk. (The Society's use of the redundant adjective "potential" (in bold print no less) infers that the men in the Writing department don't care at all what any obstetrician has to say regarding the risks which, let's be honest, exist even in "normal" pregnancies.) This is because, during gestation, there is technically only the one life-that of the woman. The fœtus represents potential. (And that's where the Society should have used that adjective, if at all.) Upon delivery, however, every effort should be made to save both mother and child inasmuch as there are now two lives.
This article is a prime example of how the Society is misogynistic to the core. The men at headquarters render lip service to recommending singleness. However, once married, those same men, like their counterparts amongst Theocratic Republicans, hold that sisters in the congregation are duty-bound to be pregnant and give birth every nine months concurrent with doing housework while their husbands are off attending to congregational matters and engaging in secular work. It's repressive and sickening. It's also yet one more reason-as though we needed another reason-for governments to crack down on the Society and the local congregations. Regrettably, in the wake of "Dobbs", we won't see that any time soon here in the United States.
@@elidan-dev
*"what do you mean uninformed"*
Precisely. LOL.
Great video
Thank you. I am glad you enjoyed it.
@@RobinJacksonZAno worries. You always keep us updated. Thank you for your hard work.
The simple fact is, if a person reads the Bible, especially the O.T., properly, god has no issue with killing born, or unborn, children.
God is only bothered when HE is not the one doing it directly or giving the order to do it.