Anna

But which reporter is going to write about this- heh?. They prefer the perceived perception that JWs are all criminals who abuse people.  It fits the new post modern probressive narrative to get rid of Christian's so they can really bring in a totally  amoral society where children can  be abused without any restrictions.
Does this sound far-fetched?  The new philosophies are all based on Marxism which advocated the destruction of all old moral values and all humans (revolution) which stood in the way of it.
Which newspaper has investigated in depth how the FBI colluded with Epstein ( who trafficked 34 teenagers) so he was only indicted for one minor offence 11 years ago?   The other lords and millionaires in the pedophile decadent pleasure ring are now protected because of his death..... 
I have come to one conclusion after looking at child trafficking in USA and UK in the top echelons of society:   It is so corpse-rotten that no-one really knows how deep the cesspit goes.  ..... and law enforcement and the legal system is a tool used by these "princes" of the earth to cover up their dark, unmentionable deeds. They go about doing what they like and are unchallenged..... while clean living decent people are made out to be the culprits.
I just hope the witnesses use the history of the loopholes in the law to place the blame where it  actually needs to be.  
There is one set of rules for the wicked and another for those who try to live clean lives. .......
 
 

I blocked quite a few trolls yesterday. I didn’t really want to block them—it is a first for me—but the nature of trolls everywhere is that they do nothing but insist upon their own view. If answered, they just repackage and run it through again, and they get downright ornery when countered. Soon you find that they have taken over your day, because they will not let your counterview stand—they must demolish it. 
They are not even wrong, necessarily, in the basic facts they may present—but they insist upon skewing them and imputing motives, invariably bad ones, to their former friends. It is like that job you left—either you quit or were fired, You are unlikely to speak well of it again, unless it clearly was a stepping stone job or a career change.
All their chums join the fray. In time, you are doing nothing else but countering these characters. They will not be swayed—as trolls never are. In our case, it is the verse: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good.” They have tasted and pronounced him bad. Are you going to turn them around in a few 280-character tweets? I don’t think so.
There is a part of me that will miss them, but they just will not behave. A writer needs a muse, but he also needs a villain. Social media is VillainsRUs, but you soon find that they are taking over your life—plus the neighbors begin to complain. It is like when you change to another genre and find trolls that insist Trump must hang for anything that has happened “on his watch,” and then you switch channels to find those insisting that Obama or Hillary must hang for whatever happened “on their watch.” Who can deal with that vitriol? We will know what is what when the fat lady signs—a reference that I soon will not be able to use due the latest development of political correctness—“fat-shaming”—although I did learn over the weekend that Brother Herd, who may not even know what political correctness is, will never reprove me for it.
When the time came, I cut them down like Captain Kirk used to cut down Romulans. I deliberately mixed up two Star Trek series so that they would tell me how stupid I was to think that Wesley Crusher was Dr. McCoy’s son. It is like when Trump tweets that North Korea has launched its nuclear missels toward the U.S. People of good sense run for the hills. Trolls run to their keyboards to point out that the idiot can’t even spell the word right. Whether they actually did it or not, I will never know—for they had been blocked:
“Space. The final frontier. These are the voyages of the StarShip TrueTom, whose mission is to boldly go where no one has gone before to tell us what’s out there! Report, TrueTom. What have you found in your valiant quest? What’s out there!”
“Roger that, Houston. I am afraid that the report is bad. It is a universe of trolls! Aren’t there any parallel universes around anywhere? They’re everywhere! In the cupboards, in the closets, in the toilets...mostly there. Let’s beam them over to the Klingon ship!”
“You have go-ahead, TrueTom. Use you digression.”
“Got it, Houston. Phasers locked. Fire at will! Mr Solo! Let’s take out the first wave of these vile aliens. Shields, up! There may be a second wave!”
“Captain, the engines—they can’t take it!”
“Suck it up, Scotty. What do you think I pay you for?”
“Mr. Spock, get Roy Romulan on the phone. Let’s patch up our little spat. He’s not such a bad guy after all.”
....
“Jean Luc, Wesley says that you are wuss for not staying to fight the trolls.”
“Tell the young snot to return to the helm. And tell him to try not to graze the side of the Ferengi ship this time. See if you can renew his learner’s permit once again.”
“Captain, are you certain that you should block all these Trolonians, like that hothead McCoy wants? I advise that we preserve some for study.”
“What! Are you, too, a Trolonian? Search and see that no prophet is to be raised up from Trolonia! Blast away, Jim!”
“Captain, one of those vile aliens exploded in my face! Look at all this green goo!”
“Wesley, you young idiot! Did you learn nothing from that “Men in Black” training video? Listen, ride outside on the wing for awhile until the stench wears off! I’ll tell your mom that you went fishing.”
“Captain, it isn’t logical that you should have put up with those trolls all that time.”
“Zip it, Spock! He was going for the StarFleet world record for Troll Endurance. Now that he has it—it came in the mail today—blast away at all those suckers!”
”Captain, the first wave has fallen, but it is as you said: “Kill a fly and 50 come to the funeral!” What can we do?”
“Hmm. What! Solo, you idiot! I said phasers! You have activated the tractor beam! Gasp! Are you a trolonian, too—et tu, Brutus?”
“Captain, the engines!”
”Oh for crying out loud Scotty! What a pain you are!”
 

Here is just one example of a government agency's (department of social services) failings:
https://www.coloradocpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-3050-CPO-Compliance-Letter-Final-Redacted-Aig-9-2019.pdf
 
 

I agree, and that is a problem many conveniently forget about. Just recently the Child Victims Act has extended the statute of limitations. And legislation is working on making priests mandated reporters in all the states of the US. These things should have been in operation for a long time already. So really, many of the problems of so called "cover ups" are a result of the inefficiencies and shortcomings of legislative bodies.

I agree, and that is a problem many conveniently forget about. Just recently the Child Victims Act has extended the statute of limitations. And legislation is working on making priests mandated reporters in all the states of the US. These things should have been in operation for a long time already. So really, many of the problems of so called "cover ups" are a result of the inefficiencies and shortcomings of legislative bodies.

Here is just one example of a government agency's (department of social services) failings:
https://www.coloradocpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-3050-CPO-Compliance-Letter-Final-Redacted-Aig-9-2019.pdf
 
 

Boys scouts may close..... and many other sports institutions may close. .....etcetc but I have a nasty suspicion that only religion will be held accountable.
Why?  I see that Jeffrey Epstein and all his high society friends (millionaires /billionaires and princes) got away with child trafficking for many years (covered up by the FBI) and top echelons of society  in EU and USA  which are rotten to the core regarding child trafficking and abuse. Epstein  conveniently was murdered - but the victims can hopefully do claims...... if they are not intimidated by MI5 and FBI -as they were before.
I think it is fulfillment of prophecy - to get rid of religion...... the reason being that the last statute to protect children was only tabled in 2003..... but I will write more about this later.....
Congress did not do their job properly....... regarding the legislation.  For many years it was taboo to speak about sex abuse and the legislation passed was so weak it actually passed the buck to organizations.  Hence the perceived neglect at organizations .... because the law was not thought through properly.
How can an organization be retroactively be held accountable by legislation when there was no proper legislation in place for a very long time.... and there were no proper and free child services available from government to determine if the abuse  really  happened or  not. 
One is innocent until proven guilty..... but this crime happens in secret and qualified people need to work with it. 
Congress should be taken to court for payments because they were too slow to cover the loopholes in legislation.
 
 
 
 

I believe you. I personally know a few who did similar things. There is no doubt about it that 1975 got blown up out of all proportions. That is why those who knew their Bible, and put that as precedent over what anybody else said (including the president of the society at the time) call it trusting your own instincts if you like, didn't get burned. But I understand that it must have been very difficult if the majority saw it differently than you. Moral of the story? Trust the Bible and no man. Lesson learned. We've got to move on.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Of course they are, but their meaning (dare I say...) overlaps.
The key to understanding is to consider against who the crime or sin is committed. The word sin is traditionally viewed by those of the soulical world as relating to the violating of God's laws or standards, whereas the word crime is understood by many of that same designation as referencing a violation of the requirements or laws of the secular state.
Really, in the spiritual world there is no difference between a crime and a sin as any violation of God's laws or principles constitues a crime or sin. To sin is a criminal act.
But we have no problem in speaking the language of the world if that is what they understand.

You mean like pee?

I do not have any parking spaces at my house for Hillary's broom.
 

Thought you were married.

One of my sons, a lawyer, who also teaches and tutors, actually tried to make a timeline for this death using all the initial reports and adjustments ("corrections") to those initial reports. There is an amazing amount of misinformation that gets put out these days on anything, especially due to the "wealth" of information and misinformation available, along with versions of information that get screenshots made while still in flux. Times for the initial cell event ranged from 3:30 to 6:30 and 7:30, with the first publicized official news report not being put out until nearly 8:30, and many early reports got some interesting adjustments throughout the day. 4chan evidently had one or two claims that were timestamped prior to the official news reports, so that these would have to have come from someone in the prison, inmate, guard, first emergency medical team, etc. One reported a military person in the vehicle that picked Epstein up. There is room for a thousand conspiracies here. 
This is so true. Even Trump reportedly kicked him out of Maro a Lago for being a pedophile. And Trump distanced himself from Epstein's pedophile lifestyle even while running around with him in his group of "nightlife musketeers" in the 80's and 90's, as someone called Trump and Epstein, before this last expose broke. Although Trump does laugh it off at the time as if not taking the criminal implications seriously enough. But this was true of so many, in spite of real evidence that's been put out there for many years now. Then there are the crazier sounding conspiracies of genetic experimentation, etc., that even the NYT reported on.
I know a lot of people think first of Trump and/or the Clinton's. But there are state governors, and high level politicians, on his list. Woody Alan, Kevin Spacey, Prince Andrew. (And I saw Kevin Spacey murder to avoid political scandal on an HBO series, and even though that was just TV -- it was TV that many Washington politicians admitted that they just "loved.") Although Trump could just have been protecting himself, he definitely drew a distinction between the types/ages of women he liked as opposed to Epstein. Clinton's first move in this last phase of the scandal was to lie about how many times he was on the plane.
Also, I looked at the passenger manifests signed by the pilot of Epstein's Boeing 727 "Lolita Express." Trump is only there once, I saw Clinton's name there at least a dozen times just on the first skim. I also saw names of famous lawyer and law professor Alan Dershowitz, model Naomi Campbell, etc., and the names of dozens of very rich men. What was disconcerting too, was that there was never an unnamed male, and all famous males and females are named (hundreds of "GM" for Ms. Maxwell) -- but there are dozens of entries like "+ 3 [unnamed] females," "+ "2 females" etc. Another of the persons involved was the man that Trump put in charge of Trump University. Trump's business manager at Maro a Lago is reported to have warned Trump about a meeting there where Trump told him to prepare the place for a private party with lots and lots of VIP's, and then he found out it would only be Trump, Epstein, and 26 "calendar girls" if I remember the number right. The business manager was surprised that the only VIP's were Trump and Epstein and he says he warned Trump that this wouldn't look right.
I've barely touched the surface here. There are dozens of angles on this, and the case is going to be ripe for more conspiracies.

I cannot say because I do not know the details of all these cases. But it leads me to your other question:
Personally? Personally think that if an elder/elders are convinced that there is a legitimate cause for concern then they should report it to the police, and if necessary, not in the capacity as elders, to whom a confession or report has been made, but as congregation members who have come to know of a cause for concern.
The reason why elders are to call legal is to see whether they are mandated reporters or not. This clergy penitence stuff should be abolished by the law, it is archaic and harmful. Unfortunately, the organization seems to think it has to abide by that law. One reason is that if an elder learns of a matter that has been disclosed in confidence to them by a victim, then the victim has the right to decide whether the matter should be taken to the police or not. Not the one to whom the matter was disclosed in confidence. 
It has to be remembered that just because an elder applies clergy confidentiality, this does not mean that anyone else in the congregation is bound by it. Anyone and everyone has the right to make a report, even if unsubstantiated! In many states, a person who has suspicions, which are later found to be unfounded, is protected by law and they cannot be sued for defamation. However, a person (elder) acting as clergy, who has broken the clergy penitence privilege, can be sued for divulging what has been told to them in confidence (in states where clergy privilege applies). This also applies to lawyers. If you disclose a private matter to a lawyer, that lawyer cannot go to the police without your consent, no matter the crime.
Most of the lawsuits involve the debate whether at the time of disclosure, the elders were mandated reporters or not. This is the case of the Montana lawsuit. I discuss this in detail in the JW closed club. If the court decides that the elders were not mandated reporters, then the whole thing flies out of the window.
In any case, personally I think that elders should not claim clergy penitence privilege regardless. They are not clergy. However, in the eyes of the legal system, their function is clerical....so you see, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. This is why he best thing would be if the law would do away with clergy penitence, period. One state legislator in Kentucky tried to get this law abolished in 2003, but it did not pass. Kentucky remains one of the clergy penitence states.
This is what the article stated in part:
January 10, 2003
FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A state legislator has outraged religious groups by introducing a bill that would abolish the right clergy now have to stay silent when they learn in a confessional that a child has been abused.
The legislation strikes at a central Christian tenet that is also written into state law, guaranteeing confidentiality when priests or ministers are acting as spiritual advisers.
"People are not going to violate their oath," said the Rev. Nancy Jo Kemper, a Protestant minister. "They'll go to jail."
Kentucky already requires members of the public, including clergy, to notify civil authorities about child abuse if they learn about the wrongdoing outside of the confessional.
But Democratic Rep. Susan Westrom, a former therapist who worked with abused children, felt the law should go further.
Under her proposal, the "clergy-penitent privilege" would be eliminated only in cases of child abuse or neglect.
The Catholic Conference of Kentucky said Westrom's legislation violated the First Amendment right of religious freedom. A similar bill proposed last year in Connecticut failed.
"This is not a victims' rights issue," said Scott Wegenast, the conference's lobbyist in Frankfort. "It violates a tenet of our faith, the sacrament of penance, which is an absolutely confidential conversation between the penitent and a priest and it cannot abridged."
Under church law, a priest who disclosed a confession could be excommunicated, Wegenast said.
Kentucky has been hit especially hard by the sex abuse crisis that has battered the Catholic church nationwide.
"No right is absolute, whether it's free speech or free assembly or free religion," David Clohessy, national director of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "If an exception is to be made to the clergy-penitent privilege, I think this is a smart and good one to make."
Like I said, this Bill did not pass. So today,  2019, if a disclosure is made to an elder in Kentucky in confidence, then the elder has no duty to report it to the police. Obviously anyone else can.

I cannot say because I do not know the details of all these cases. But it leads me to your other question:
Personally? Personally think that if an elder/elders are convinced that there is a legitimate cause for concern then they should report it to the police, and if necessary, not in the capacity as elders, to whom a confession or report has been made, but as congregation members who have come to know of a cause for concern.
The reason why elders are to call legal is to see whether they are mandated reporters or not. This clergy penitence stuff should be abolished by the law, it is archaic and harmful. Unfortunately, the organization seems to think it has to abide by that law. One reason is that if an elder learns of a matter that has been disclosed in confidence to them by a victim, then the victim has the right to decide whether the matter should be taken to the police or not. Not the one to whom the matter was disclosed in confidence. 
It has to be remembered that just because an elder applies clergy confidentiality, this does not mean that anyone else in the congregation is bound by it. Anyone and everyone has the right to make a report, even if unsubstantiated! In many states, a person who has suspicions, which are later found to be unfounded, is protected by law and they cannot be sued for defamation. However, a person (elder) acting as clergy, who has broken the clergy penitence privilege, can be sued for divulging what has been told to them in confidence (in states where clergy privilege applies). This also applies to lawyers. If you disclose a private matter to a lawyer, that lawyer cannot go to the police without your consent, no matter the crime.
Most of the lawsuits involve the debate whether at the time of disclosure, the elders were mandated reporters or not. This is the case of the Montana lawsuit. I discuss this in detail in the JW closed club. If the court decides that the elders were not mandated reporters, then the whole thing flies out of the window.
In any case, personally I think that elders should not claim clergy penitence privilege regardless. They are not clergy. However, in the eyes of the legal system, their function is clerical....so you see, you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. This is why he best thing would be if the law would do away with clergy penitence, period. One state legislator in Kentucky tried to get this law abolished in 2003, but it did not pass. Kentucky remains one of the clergy penitence states.
This is what the article stated in part:
January 10, 2003
FRANKFORT, Ky. -- A state legislator has outraged religious groups by introducing a bill that would abolish the right clergy now have to stay silent when they learn in a confessional that a child has been abused.
The legislation strikes at a central Christian tenet that is also written into state law, guaranteeing confidentiality when priests or ministers are acting as spiritual advisers.
"People are not going to violate their oath," said the Rev. Nancy Jo Kemper, a Protestant minister. "They'll go to jail."
Kentucky already requires members of the public, including clergy, to notify civil authorities about child abuse if they learn about the wrongdoing outside of the confessional.
But Democratic Rep. Susan Westrom, a former therapist who worked with abused children, felt the law should go further.
Under her proposal, the "clergy-penitent privilege" would be eliminated only in cases of child abuse or neglect.
The Catholic Conference of Kentucky said Westrom's legislation violated the First Amendment right of religious freedom. A similar bill proposed last year in Connecticut failed.
"This is not a victims' rights issue," said Scott Wegenast, the conference's lobbyist in Frankfort. "It violates a tenet of our faith, the sacrament of penance, which is an absolutely confidential conversation between the penitent and a priest and it cannot abridged."
Under church law, a priest who disclosed a confession could be excommunicated, Wegenast said.
Kentucky has been hit especially hard by the sex abuse crisis that has battered the Catholic church nationwide.
"No right is absolute, whether it's free speech or free assembly or free religion," David Clohessy, national director of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. "If an exception is to be made to the clergy-penitent privilege, I think this is a smart and good one to make."
Like I said, this Bill did not pass. So today,  2019, if a disclosure is made to an elder in Kentucky in confidence, then the elder has no duty to report it to the police. Obviously anyone else can.

If you fill to near capacity a 40,000+ seat stadium for a volunteer event, put on by volunteers, surely those of the local media will be impressed. Not the Phoenix New Times reporter! who is “weirded-out” by aspects of the gathering that most would find commendable, and barely mentions the event anyway, as she immerses herself in the narrative of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ harshest detractors. Plainly, the packed stadium photos and the gist of the article do not match.
I could be wrong, but I think most will recognize this piece as a hit job, and it might even motivate some to go there to investigate, where they will see that the tone of it is nonsense. “Three days of music-video presentations, prayers, songs, addresses, symposiums, and dramatic readings from the Bible,” according the event program, will intrigue some as a refreshing rarity. 
Are they so “cultish” as the reporter charges? Stadium and hospitality personnel often cannot praise JWs enough, rarely encountering such orderly and pleasant people. A reporter in Miami wishes that the Marlins could fill their own stadium to capacity as have Jehovah’s Witnesses. A shock jock in Rochester a few years back waxed ecstatic over Witnesses when he found that they categorically reject violence. “These are my people!” he gushed on-air. Another stadium is said to accept as payment-in-full the thorough annual scouring that the Witnesses give the facility. Others reporters, such as this millennial in New Orleans, wrote it up that, while they certainly are different in beliefs, still they are just ordinary folk come together for religious instruction.
Not everyone will be as shocked and disdainful as the Phoenix reporter that there are still some people who dress up. Not everyone will gasp in disapproval at counsel that we ought watch who we hang out with. If the New Times reporter felt “conspicuous in pants,” well—that’s hardly the fault of the attendees. She could have chosen to be not conspicuous had she been concerned about it. When I invite people to conventions, I observe: “You are perfectly welcome to come just as you are. But if you don’t have one of these [I flip my tie], everyone will assume you are a visitor, and they may just come to preach to you.” Householders smile at the heads-up.
The blatant ill will and bias of the New Times article is evident even in trivial matters, such as the reporter’s disdain that “attendees listened rapturously,” as though they should be expected to nod off. In fact, some of them do after lunch on long afternoons, and it was worse before the days of efficient air conditioning. Don’t attendees of concerts or rallies also listen rapturously? Why come if you do not?
Not all will smirk at the “lowest rate of retention on all religions” that Witnesses suffer. Many will realize that it is more than offset by the high rate of participation from those that stick. After all, there are many faiths where members might not actually leave, but how would you know if they did? The high participation rate actually accounts for the lower retention rate, for inevitably some will tire of it and opt for something less strenuous. Similarly, not everyone will be shocked that should you do a 180 and ardently attack what you once embraced, relations with the family may suffer. Of course they will. It is not brands of automobiles that we speak of.
But the bulk of the article deals disapprovingly with how Witnesses have grappled with the same child sexual abuse plague that has shown itself pandemic throughout society—be it in segments religious or irreligious. The recent Epstein “suicide” only underscores that the evil reaches into the highest echelons of society, some members of whom appear desperate to cover their tracks. If, in the opinion of the ARC, “children are not adequately protected from the risk of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation,” frequent news reports make clear that they are not “adequately protected” anywhere. Even the Boy Scouts of America, that iconic institution that has taught generations of boys responsibility, did not succeed in purging all pedophiles from its midst, and is at risk of going under for it.
Arguably, as Jehovah’s Witnesses have attempted to police their own, they have faltered in coordinating such internal “policing” with the actual police. Still, this must be countered by the consideration that few faiths make any attempt at all to look into wrongdoing within the ranks. When a member is nabbed for child sexual abuse, it is as much of a surprise to the minister as anyone else. Moreover, with some groups, the minister is the perpetrator—not just the one who investigates the sin.
Jehovah’s Witnesses live, work, and school in the general community. They are politically neutral, and as such, are pacifist. The same Pew source that tells of their “low retention rate” also says of them: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most racially and ethnically diverse religious groups in America.” Just how sinister can they be? In Russia, Jehovah’s Witnesses were declared “extremist” and banned in 2017 for entirely separate reasons, the topic of child abuse having never once arisen—and their woes are exacerbated by the same critics attempting to take them down in the West with diatribes that are embraced by the New Times.
One almost senses that the reporter’s discomfort at being offered help three separate times by three separate attendants to find a seat might stem from an uncomfortable sense that they have somehow discerned her intention to accept their hospitality and then lambaste them on the media. Charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses that she has showcased here—which are certainly not nothing—are dealt with in the free ebook TrueTom vs the Apostates! which includes 10+ chapters on the core charge of child abuse.
As society increasingly becomes disillusioned with God, it is inevitable that participatory religion will be regarded as cultish. What Jehovah’s Witnesses think of articles such as in the New Times is immaterial. Historically, they rise to fight the battles laid before them. They are used to presenting their faith through its most appealing lens. Let them become used, if need be, to presenting it through its least appealing lens, for both are to be expected of imperfect persons attempting to apply Bible standards in a world that increasingly shrugs them off.

Too true!

I rest my case.

I am sure you've heard the illustration using alcohol. If the doc tells us do not drink alcohol, would he have to be specific and say do not transfuse it into your veins either?
Yes, I agree, it gets very complicated...I think what JWI and I were talking about is babies and very small children with similar decision making capabilities as a dog (sorry if it sounds weird . I did read somewhere though that a dog's intelligence is comparable to a 3 year old child) but also those who might be older but considered 'immature' by worldly courts.

I don't think anyone was saying this was an issue.
Also, if you are insinuating that the command on blood should be obeyed because of health benefits, then you are missing the point entirely.
 

both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are,
If you allow me to say, I see a little problem here. WT Society looking with happiness when 7 - 17 years old children making "informed decision" to be baptized.
Also, Organization are proud when Court making decision to allow minor children to make own "informed decision" on medical treatment (refuse blood).
This two sort of examples making issue more complicated. Because, will you allow or not allow - that children making own "informed decisions"? And should that be general rule for all children? Or  you put final decision on adult (Judicial Committee .... Worldly  Court) does  children  enough "mature" to make own "informed decision" or not? Etc.  
 
Here i see some theological issue. If God who see things in advance not gave clear command to his people about blood and say - do not eat, do not drink, do not transfuse blood, how is possible that people interpret blood ban as ban about blood transfusion or some other medical treatment that will come in the future?
If we try to explain how his people (or people in general) didn't know nothing  about transfusion, so God didn't want to made his command  unclear or incomprehensible to them, than i see another proof how GB explanation about need to obey their command and instructions despite the fact how such "Life Saving" instructions are not reasonable or understandable from "human standpoint" is just human interpretations and manipulation. 
If God not want to burden people more than it is needed, and he was done that with clear and sound commandants, readable in Law - ......
Why would He allow and be agreeable, with GB ideas .... who  giving obscure and questionable instructions, to His people about way of worshiping?    

More like will the dog's conscience allow him to associate with US

I really didn't notice anything like that. So there's nothing to worry about or defend.
Yes. You understood me. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not worried about whether anyone agrees, but I'm glad you understand.
Yes. You are seeing the issues. The article that said no blood transfusions for pets was written at a time when we were still being told that our conscience doesn't allow certain fractions, which our consciences are now allowed to allow. So where does this leave our pets? Can we get a medical therapy for a dog that allows hemoglobin as long as it is not in the form of full red blood cells, but just the portions of that cell from which someone squished out the hemoglobin? And if we do allow it, can we still associate with the dog, if we are disfellowshipped for giving unsanctioned blood to our pets? 😉

... and does absolutely NOTHING for the Society's  Credibility, which is in painfully short supply this past 50 years.

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking. There were a lot of people coming and going out of the house and talking to me, so I found it hard to concentrate, I changed the sentence around a bit and forgot to put the I back. It should have read " so I don't think..."

Of course the child has rights, and one of those rights is the right to live. I think I am beginning  to understand the angle you are looking at it from. Like what right do the parents have to say that a child is to die as a result of their (the parents conscience). It's complicated, because it's true that no one has the right to decide over the life (as in life or death) of another human. On the  other hand the parents are responsible in Jehovah's eyes to uphold the law.  I understand now why you brought up the parallel example with the pets. So in effect persons are upholding the law not only for themselves but also for others in their care, whether it be children or pets. (Or as you call it imposing their conscience). I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.
But I think the main misunderstanding in our dialogue has been because we have both been approaching the issue from different angles, for example the Bible says children belong to Jehovah, and that they are merely in the parents care. So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision, rather than anything to do with imposing their conscience onto a dependent child? So I think that's the angle I was coming at it from. But you were looking at it from the point of view of the rights of a dependent child (or pet) per se. Am I understanding it right?