In the first part of this article, we elucidated the importance of the right to life for Christians, not to mention the atmosphere of religious freedom we enjoyed in Brazil and the possibility of other denominations thinking differently from our own, but always agree. with the dignity of the human person, which is the cornerstone of all natural freedoms and rights.
The State, by not intervening in the individual sphere of the largest and most fully capable believer (over 18 years of age and lucid), seeking to exercise its liturgical choice, according to an intimate belief of faith, fulfills the constitutional precept and republican foundation of the dignity of the human person. for this believer there is no dignified life if he is not perfectly in line with the values of his religious belief, living without this conformation would imply a total breakdown of his fundamental values, which justify his existence [1]. It is important to emphasize the notion that, as rational human beings, life is not limited to biological conception, but also includes moral conception [2].
- For the avoidance of doubt: the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses sees non-bloodshed as an act of obedience to God.
- And therefore.
- From their doctrinal perspective.
- Essential to their confession of faith (even if it is incompatible with the tradition of the Evangelical.
- Protestant.
- And Roman Catholic Apostolic Church).
- They must have the right to exercise their guaranteed faith What Jehovah’s Witnesses Understand :.
“It’s more of a religious than a medical matter. The Old and New Testaments clearly order us to abstain from blood. [?] Besides, for God, blood represents life. [?] Therefore, we avoid taking blood in any way, not only out of obedience to God, but also out of respect for him as a Giver of Life. ?/ 063]
It is important to continue emphasizing: when the medical procedure is consistent with the fundamental freedom of belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it does not compromise the thinking of those who consider blood transfusion as a legitimate medical procedure (as is the case with evangelicals). Protestant churches. ). There is no need to talk about the relativism of the right to life, since such abstinence is a component of a certain religious belief, being incompatible with biblical premises is one thing, having your religious freedom hoarded is another, it is no longer freedom. be a religious imposition.
Making the most of civilian capacity, i. e. adulthood, the faithful who choose not to be treated for religious and risk-conscious reasons, must ensure respect for their will. Is this a bad act? According to Christianity, yes!But it escapes the fact that it is exclusively an apologetic debate, by a right guaranteed in the Brazilian constitutional framework.
The same consideration, however, is not valid when the faithful are incapable or even when faced with a threat to the life of a community; in fact, in the face of the freedom of belief of the former, there is no preservation of his dignity by allowing the exercise of his intimate conviction, since his autonomy of will is not full.
In the same sense, the deliberation of Judge Clauber Costa Abreu of Goiás, who allowed blood transfusion in a newborn, who was the son of Jehovah’s Witnesses, is healthy an excerpt from the decision to corroborate the question:
It is important to note that freedom of conscience and religious worship are not denied to be fundamental guarantees in our Constitution, which is at stake, in this case, is not the guarantee of an absolute individual right, but the guarantee of the right. of a person who is still incapable, very personal and therefore irrevocable. ? [4]
Thus, if you deny him this exercise, he will not deny him the dignity of a human person. In the case of the second example, if it allowed the exercise of a person’s intimate conviction, we would deny the right of so many others who have not expressed their choice to preserve their religious belief at the cost of life. .
This is the case with the need for a Fire Prevention Plan, although some or even many believers have the utmost conviction that worship of their God is fundamental to their existence, even without safety conditions and thus would see the dignity of each person’s human person. the faithful themselves cannot opt for neighbors close to liturgical practice or passers-by who circulate in the surroundings, even by curious or visitors who can attend such a service out of curiosity without faith in the creed itself. , the right to life and dignity of the human person because of the collective interest exceeds individual law.
The moral relevance of disability is much greater than that of those who can decide for themselves, unlike advocates of free abortion, who do not value life in the womb of the mother, we understand that disability and the child must have their life protected, simply because there is no full capacity to choose their own actions, being only led by others to walk and understand a religion?the option of professing faith is adequately consolidated only with the discretion of the subject, and only with the majority that such power of choice will be the leader [5]. But this is just the legal solution!Can’t we confuse the protection of a religion with the distortion of reformed confessions of faith (including the need to undergo medical care when the body needs it)?One doesn’t involve the other.
As much as the protection of religious freedom may contradict not only our beliefs of faith, but also the system legitimized by the medical community, as well as our ontological vision of the value of life, it must be respected in cases that involve a faithful , aware of the result of his religious decision, and that his choice results exclusively in prejudice, exclusively, for himself. The believer decides for himself, never for others.
?
[1] At odds: SOLER, Marcos. La Church and Brazilian law. Yours? O Paulo: LTr, 2010, p. 114-115. [2] [?] Morality and?The only condition is what can make a rational being an end in itself?Is that why, for you and her? It is possible to be a legislator in the field of purpose. Therefore, morality and humanity, although capable of morality, are the only thing that has its dignity (KANT, Imanuel. Foundation of the metaphysics of customs. Translation by Paulo Quintela. Paulo: Cultural April, 1974, p. 234. ) [3] Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses not force him to accept blood transfusions?Available at: Access 01/06/2019 [4] Antetecedente Tutelar Action No. 5112276. 40. 2019. 8. 09. 0051 ( District of Goiania – XV Civil and Environmental Court) / Available at: [5] Here without entering the theological aspects (choice by grace, will of servant, grace of resistance, pelagianism, etc. ) but alone and only in the outer manifestation of it will be.