1 posted on
10/17/2007 7:14:23 PM PDT by
jabchae
To: jabchae
If they have 9 proven healthy kids, I’d be willing to exempt them from the blood tests.
And of course the social worker opposes the breast feeding - how dare the mother be a mother, and see her child several times a day and bond with it? Despite government ads that breast is best ...
2 posted on
10/17/2007 7:19:22 PM PDT by
tbw2
(Science fiction with real science - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
To: jabchae
On the one hand, the judge is a dope.
On the other, these people knew or should have known that their state law has no exception on the grounds of religious belief, so they should have moved or sued several children back.
3 posted on
10/17/2007 7:26:11 PM PDT by
Mad Dawg
(Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
Save us, dear Lord, from those who would save us. Art Hoppe, On the Death of Robert Kennedy
San Francisco Chronicle, 1968
4 posted on
10/17/2007 7:27:06 PM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
To: jabchae
When asked what her objection to the testing was, Anaya said the Bible states that life is in the blood. “To me, the blood is something important and not to be tampered with,” she said.
-
so risk the life to save the blood?
5 posted on
10/17/2007 7:30:12 PM PDT by
ari-freedom
(I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
To: jabchae
By the way, the parents did get the baby back, only a little worse for wear, after six days.
6 posted on
10/17/2007 7:40:06 PM PDT by
jabchae
To: jabchae
until preliminary results confirm no further testing is needed. horse pucky...
7 posted on
10/17/2007 7:52:43 PM PDT by
maine-iac7
("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" LINCOLN)
To: Gabz
8 posted on
10/17/2007 8:05:53 PM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: jabchae
The life is in the blood for sure, but the main Scriptural injuctions dealing with it are for forbidding to eat it and the fact that the life is in the blood is the reason.
There’s nothing in Scripture that I could see would prevent testing. Transfusions-I could see someone’s reasoning, but not testing.
What’s she going to do if her kids cut themselves? Or they witness a bad accident and need to help? Do they not eat meat because it has blood in it, no matter how hard you try to get it out?
9 posted on
10/17/2007 8:10:22 PM PDT by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: jabchae
Its fascism. If the state can seize your children and perform tests on them, imagine what it could do for your health as an adult - and you have no say in the matter. Its an outrage this happens in a free country and moreover in a Red State.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
16 posted on
11/02/2007 5:21:48 PM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: jabchae
Fools...If they have had 9 kids in a row without the genetic disease then it is incredibly unlikely that the 10th one would.
Bureaucrats be damned...
17 posted on
11/02/2007 5:29:31 PM PDT by
TASMANIANRED
(TAZ:Untamed, Unpredictable, Uninhibited.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson