Jehovah's Witness blood death

Sad sad story today of the Jehovah's witness who died in childbirth rather than breach the sect's strict rule against blood transfusion.  This happens from time to time and perhaps it is important to try and understand the theology behind it, however bewildering or perverse it seems to most of us.

There has been a long controversy about it but this is the basic thinking: it stems from a sense of sacredness.  They cite Genesis : 9 vs 3-4  "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat." Also Leviticus  17 vs 14 " Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood".    Which can be interpreted merely as hygiene regulations of the ancient world.   

In JW doctrine, however, there is some excitement over the idea of "bloodless surgery" pioneered in the US. And transfusions of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma remain forbidden though in 2004 The Watchtower Society, the official body representing Jehovah's Witnesses, notified its members that fractions from each of these, including red blood cells without a membrane, can be used in medical procedures according to a Witness's own conscience.
       However, within the Witnesses there is a strongly felt reform group which makes exceptions.  Because, more often than they should, people die for this belief....

Comments

[Jerry]

This WatchTower Society requirement that Jehovah's Witnesses must refuse to accept any blood transfusions dates back only to 1945. Misinterpreting the Old Testament prohibition against eating animal blood as a routine food item, the WatchTower Society began teaching in 1945 that receiving a blood transfusion was "eating human blood". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that receiving an infusion of human blood into their body's circulatory system is scientifically the exact same thing as eating or ingesting blood into their body's digestive system.

"A patient in the hospital maybe fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating through his veins." -- The WATCHTOWER magazine, July 1, 1951.

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body's circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body's digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item. Ingested blood would be completely digested and broken down into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and waste; which are then either assimilated or excreted by the body.

The WatchTower Society uses scriptures which speak about the blood of slaughtered animals to teach Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is "sacred" because blood is the "symbol of life". Then, the WatchTower Society turns around and requires Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their own "life" to maintain the alleged "sacredness" of a "symbol" of the very thing they are sacrificing -- their life. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that the WatchTower doctrine on blood moronically places a higher value on the SYMBOL than it does on the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the Old Testament scriptures permitted the eating of unbled animal meat, which the Bible treats exactly the same as eating animal blood itself. In isolated occasions, when humans needed to eat unbled meat in order to sustain their own human life, the Mosaic Law permitted such, but then required the eaters to fulfill the requirements of being "unclean" for a few days. Thus, the Bible recognized that the sustaining of human life was more "sacred" than maintaining the sacredness of animal blood. To do otherwise would be doing exactly what the moronic WatchTower Society does. It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the WatchTower Society is leading Jehovah's Witnesses to disobey GOD and violate the Holy Scriptures in one of the most serious ways possible. Because humans were created in GOD's image, GOD considers human life sacred. A Jehovah's Witness who sacrifices their SACRED LIFE in order to maintain the sacredness of a SYMBOL of that SACRED LIFE varies little from those who profane life by committing suicide. Those Jehovah's Witness Elders who teach and police this moronic doctrine vary little from common accessories to murder. The Bible is fairly clear in how GOD views murder, and how He deals with Murderers.

This moronic twisting of scripture would be laughable if not for the fact that it has lead to the pointless deaths of numerous Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and it will continue to lead to the pointless deaths of many more Jehovah's Witnesses in the future.

SUMMARIES OF 300 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES LAWSUITS & COURT CASES


The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com

[Geoffrey Smith]

Needless to say, the JWs are intemperate critics of every one who prefers the traditional interpretation of Scripture, the meaning intended by the original writers.

[Nick Moore]

So the soul is in the blood is it? When will religious people start to understand that much of the Bible is metaphor?
I wonder how grateful these babies will be, in later life, growing up without a mother, because she considered the 'verities' of Genesis and Leviticus more important than bringing them up.
I despair.

[Tony Francis]

When I was a resident at the Children's Hospital in Denver, Colorado, 1980-81, we routinely performed extensive spinal surgery on Jehohav's Witness patients. At that time, there was no blood transfusion allowed. But blood sucked up could be filtered and re-infused, so long as the tubes connecting the system remained attached to the body. Even so, children would be bled down to 4 or less grams (which is really anemic). Everyone seemed to withstand this, with no lasting effects.

[Kathleen]

Very sad story. Too late in this case, but are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to have their own blood set aside in advance of surgery? If they are, that might be a wise move.

Such a shame.

[Widdershins]

It seems to me that the prohibition of blood transfusions is firmly rooted in the necessary rejection of idolatry by JWs - and all Christians must respect this, however much they might consider it extreme.

[Ken]

In the wake of this tragic death, we need to question whether we can do nothing to protect our communities from a so-called 'religion' that requires faith-based suicide of its members if they should become so unfortunate as to require medical treatment.

Three matters need to be urgently investigated:

- Can Jehovah's Witness leaders be charged with corporate manslaughter for their criminal negligence in deliberately deceiving their members by exaggerating both the risks of blood transfusions and the benefits of alternative treatments?

- Why has their charity status not been revoked years ago, including its massive tax breaks, when they bring absolutely no public benefit yet cause death and break up families?

- Can the relatives sue the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' corporate headquarters organisation) for substantial compensation in recognition of the loss suffered and to deter future recurrences?

Jehovah's Witnesses' own publications admit thousands of Witnesses have died as a result of their deadly doctrines.

Until these questions are seriously addressed, we cannot consider ourselves a civilised society.

[Mike Homfray]

Does this not show the folly opf taking words written for another age and society and applying them to our own society?

This is but one example - conservative Christianity is built entirely on doing just that.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Does this not show the folly of taking words written for another age and society and applying them to our own society?
- Mike Homfray, 6 NOV 2007, 11:40:52

Wrong again, Mike. The Hippocratic oath? Magna Carta? The Declaration of Independence? What a pity you don't think before posting.

[Tony Francis]

The history of the law is interesting. In the US, the individual has an absolute Constitutional right to refuse any treatment. To ignore this right is a battery. The issue becomes clouded when children are involved. In the UK, the Poor Law Amendment Act 1868 held: "When any parent shall wilfully neglect to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid, or lodging for his child, being in his custody, under the age of fourteen years, whereby the health of such child shall have been, or shall be likely to be, seriously injured, he shall be guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction." The Act was subsequently amended several times.
The law was less clear in the US. There are dozens of old cases where manslaughter charges were successfully tried in various states. However, there are a handful of cases in which the court recognized a "belief in prayer over the medical profession". The pre-1921 cases are reviewed in 10 ALR 1137. LaFave writes: "Whether one is liable for involuntary manslaughter for failure to provide medical care for a sick person or injured helpless person depends on whether there is a duty to do so; and whether, if affirmative action had been taken, the life which was lost could have been saved. As for the defense of religious belief, it is no interference with one's freedom of religion to convict of manslaughter one who, for religious reasons, fails to call a doctor when to fail to do so constitutes criminal negligence. Yet an honest belief that prayer is a better cure than medicine, that Providence can heal better than doctors, might serve to negative the awareness of risk which is required for manslaughter in those states which use a subjective test of criminal negligence. What if the defendant, who has a duty of care, believes in prayer but not in medicine and so does not call a doctor; and then does not pray!" (LaFave and Scott; "Criminal Law") This case occurred in State v. Stanford, Maine, 1905. The jury convicted on the evidence that prayers were not said. The case was reversed on appeal.
Modern Child Endangerment laws most likely supercede these cases. Medical personnel are required to report any suspected abuse or neglect to Social Serivces or the Police. A court order usually ensues to relieve the suspected parent of custody of the child.

[Danny Haszard]

Who are Jehovah's Witnesses?
Dissident Jehovah's Witness speaks out.

No tolerance,the Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult because they try to cut you off from others who do not have the same beliefs, including family. The Watchtower is an oppressive organization if there ever was one!

The 'message' is their false Gospel that Jesus had his second coming already in 1914.The problem with this,is it's not just a cute fairy tale, Jesus warned of the false prophets who would claim "..look he is here in the wilderness,or see here he is at the temple"

The Watchtower's Gospel "kingdom" is a man-made "different version".(Gal.1:8)
The Watchtower is a truly Orwellian world.
----
Danny Haszard Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation

[Danny Haszard]

Jehovah's Witnesses elders will investigate and disfellowship any Jehovah Witness who takes a blood transfusion,to say the issue is a 'personal conscience matter' is subterfuge to keep the Watchtower out of lawsuits.

Many Jehovah's Witnesses men,women and children die every year worldwide due to blood transfusion ban.Rank & file Jehovah's Witness are indoctrinated to be scared to death of blood.

FYI
1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?

2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.

3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.

Know this,the reason that JW refuse blood is because of their spin on the 3000 year old Biblical old testament,modern medicine will eventually make blood donations and transfusions a thing of the past.When this technology happens it won't vindicate the Jehovah's Witnesses and all the deaths that have occured so far.
The Watchtower's rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood 'components' are allowed.
In 20 years there will be artificial blood and the Red Cross will go on with other noble deeds.

None of these changes will absolve the Watchtower leaders or vindicate their twisted doctrines
Are there dangers from blood?There are over 500 aspirin deaths in USA yearly.
---
Danny Haszard born 1957 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness

[Jason Morris]

Yet again the ex JW's and critics have there day in the Sun.
Please treat Danny Haszards and others views as severely biased and serving their own agenda.
Jehovahs Witnesses Do not practise faith based suicide, this is patently ridiculous.
Jehovahs Witnesses have been at the forefront of championing non blood medicine and will go to great lengths to preserve the life of their loved ones.
I suggest that if people really want to know why Witnesses do not accept blood, and what we do in a medical situation is to ask a Witness.
If you rely on some parts of the media or someone with an axe to grind to form an opinion you head down the road of bigotry based on ignorance.

[jim]

Leviticus demands a host of things that are no relevant to modern society, and is full of nasty vitriol. All who use the bible as a sacred text selectively ignore large chunks of it, for good reason. How do they decide what to follow religiously, and what to ignore? This gets to the heart of the idiocy of much dogmatic religious practice.
There are many long sections about forms of demanded animal sacrifice, which are no longer expected. Why not? A host of food laws are given, and in today's era of clean food preparation are no longer relevant to clean food practice. Rules for female cleanliness and isolation after birth are quoted, and are now irrelevant. How do people decide what doesn't need to be followed, as supposedly demanded by God?
Health rules pertaining to possible leprosy are given, demanding isolation periods, but can include only assumed diagnoses, with many illnesses likely misclassified as epilepsy. Should we try to work them out and follow the policies?
Of course, it is virtually impossible to rid any carcass of "ANY MANNER" of blood, as modern science can show, as any meat will have traces of blood, therefore the only way to truly follow this rule is to be a vegan. Is getting rid of most blood good enough? Also, the statement that blood is the life of the flesh is a primitive one. A certain amount of blood is needed to sustain life, but all major organs are vital, as is enough oxygen, and a host of other bodily processes, so the basic premise is simplistic.
"....thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". If Leviticus called for this, how do the Israelites later on justify all their wars, killings and genocides? How can God recant on this to justify punishments, without demanding suicide as a self-inflicted punishment for certain deeds? How does anyone who proposes to follow God's word justify anything other than treating every other person as another self? How does the same author later on justify saying "And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword" if those enemies are a neighbour? It seems the word neighbour is very selective back then, and means people like them.
Primitive punishments are called for, such as stoning and burning to death for various transgressions. Still justified? Why not? God apparently commanded it?
The disabled are treated as unworthy and unequal. This is not acceptable now, so do we selectively ignore this section as well?
This punishing, hard-line God of Leviticus is NOT a nice God. So why follow some but not all of the tenets? Why follow any? How does one choose? How does a Jehovah's Witness, Jew, Christian, or anyone decide what if anything here is still worthy of being considered God's principles, commandments or rules? What of those things that are now considered immoral? Was God wrong and immoral, or were Moses or the author mistaken about God's wishes?

[Dean]

Please don't get mad if some minds evolve slower than yours.Jesus loves the poor (thinkers)and so should we.
GOD is Good

[don]

If it was their own personal choice not to take blood fair enough. But it should be a matter for the person not the church marching in and saying if you do this you are out.

The real problem is if it involves a child who is not old enough to make a decision. I think it is really selfish of the church to put medical stall in this position. The parents of the child chose their faith but the medical staff has to deal with the consequences of it and watch children die where they could have been easily saved with a pint of blood.

I read that a woman died after refusing blood and relative had the nerve to say “We can’t believe she died after childbirth in this day and age, with all the technology there is.” The technology is there but you have to use it was her choice not to and she died because of it so don’t blame the technology or staff they tried their best.

[Lynn - Michigan]

What about all the people that have died AS A RESULT of accepting blood transfusions? Sometimes the negative effects of receiving a blood transfusion doesn't show up right away, it can takes weeks, months, and years to show up, and then usually the doctor does not tie it back to the transfusion. Somehow these blood transfusion deaths don't make the news, wonder why that is?

It's funny how the medical establishment can do no wrong no matter how many people they kill. They are given a pat on the back and are considered noble for killing someone with their treatments while those who choose to exercise their own wishes regarding treatment are decried if they die. But really, who is the nobler one in this case? And who should be applauded? Those who place "unthinking confidence" in their doctors and die as a result or those that do THINK and make their own conscious decisions factoring in all the possible outcomes? And there are many, many, many more that don't die as a result of educating themselves about blood transfusions and refusing them. What about that? The MDs even admit that the outcome for those that DO NOT accept blood transfusions is far greater than those that do, both in the short-term and the long-term. Religion aside – it’s just smarter NOT to accept blood transfusions. Do the research and to really have your eyes opened, research the blood transfusion industry. Not a pretty picture!

The JAMA of July 26, 2000 did a study on how many people doctors kill each year (the scope was just how many people MDs kill in hospitals), and the number came out that doctors are the #3 leading cause of death in the US just behind cancer and heart disease. I would imagine if this data were extrapolated and the scope was broadened to include all areas where MDs practice, that they would be the #1 killer in the US.

Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5

Why aren't people crying foul about that? Why isn't there an uprising about a medical system that is imploding on itself? The AMA/FDA/Pharmaceutical/Food Industry/Disease Insurance cartel's business model clearly is hurting people--NOT helping them - diseases of the old (diabetes, cancer, obesity) are now not only plaguing the general population but are becoming epidemic in children (and even pets).

Yet, somehow, people turn their heads the other way when such things are brought to the fore - I wonder why that it is? My guess: M-O-N-E-Y.

And somehow none of the MDs killings from blood transfusions and the many other ways that they kill people each year make the nightly news either. Let's take a look at the numbers of how many people MDs kill each and every year (remember this is just who MDs kill in hospitals):

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.

This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) documents the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm (which includes doctors taking the easy way out and pushing blood transfusions when safer treatments are available and have been successfully used for decades)!

The author of the above cited article is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health. Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:

First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.

Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.

Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.

If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death.

Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:

116 million extra physician visits
77 million extra prescriptions
17 million emergency department visits
8 million hospitalizations
3 million long-term admissions
199,000 additional deaths
$77 billion in extra costs

The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.

This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators.

So there you have it. How about the news publishing news stories about people that are killed by doctors each day? There would be plenty of stories to go around for every news station. www.mercola.com

And then consider all the times that toxic treatments like chemo are administered by oncologists to their cancer patients and it kills them - that doesn't make the news. BUT, if someone wants to try a non-toxic treatment (that does NOT damage the very immune system they need to kill the cancer like chemo does--and chemo also damages the brain, heart, hearing, liver, etc.), and they are not successful in killing the cancer, then there is a HUGE big deal made about that and how people should go to jail and blah blah blah all over the news. TRULY A DOUBLE STANDARD EXISTS!!!!

Here you have people crying foul about someone making a conscious choice about their health but where are these same people when ones die as a result of TAKING a blood transfusion--because these ones placed unthinking confidence in their doctor? These victims may have lived had they did research and chose a safer treatment to overcome their blood loss. You have to find doctors that are knowledgeable, realize that they are working FOR YOU, and are skilled in this arena. You have to check this out BEFORE a life-threatening event occurs. Some doctors stay up with current technologies, most don't, has been my experience.

My guess, in this situation, is that the doctor was unskilled in handling the situation and not enough research was done into the doctor's background and skills in advance by those hiring him. Sad, but a lesson for the rest of us.

[jim]

If there is such a thing as absolute morality, how could a God justify demanding that the Israelites rigidly follow moral commands now considered immoral (like scourging, stoning and burning to death for various transgressions) or which should be essentially outside morality (like food practices)? How could he change his mind and require different moral principles for different eras and peoples, if morality is absolute?
It was bad luck for those who suffered death and torture at His supposed instigation, who nowadays would be treated more humanely by following His supposed newer edicts.

[Tony Francis]

Lynn in Michigan: You ask why someone doesn't do anything about doctor errors. Someone does. They are called "tort lawyers".

[Dean]

HI JIM
If you are truly a seeker reread Christ teachings with an open mind.Teachers in the past had to speak in a way that could be understood.Jesus left his teachings to be added to by the Holy Spirit.All Christians can help in the progress.
It is sad that some still practice laws that Jesus told us have been fulfilled. GOD is Good

[jim]

"The MDs even admit that the outcome for those that DO NOT accept blood transfusions is far greater than those that do, both in the short-term and the long-term. Religion aside – it’s just smarter NOT to accept blood transfusions" (Lynn).

Lynn, you are mixing up different arguments and issues in you ramble. Yes, there is a lot of iatrogenic (drug and intervention) related disease. The field of Medicine needs to continually review this and minimise it. Sometimes the lesson is not to intervene or use a drug, sometimes the lesson is a different intervention is better, a new technique, a better drug or combination, or whatever. Unfortunately some of medical progress is by trial and error, even after careful laboratory testing or other research. Sometimes complications, negligence or bad luck can occur. Most doctors do care about their patients, and aren't just in it for the money. They could do other jobs and get well paid, and often better paid. It isn't easy, and a lot harder than armchair positions of scepticism, though we do need ongoing external audit, critical assessment, fair criticism and openly available evidence about outcomes and results.

As far as blood use is concerned there is no doubt we have learned that too many transfusions were used in the past, and sometimes the results of transfusion were/are dreadful or fatal. However, there is no doubt that many thousands lives are saved or helped daily by the use of blood and blood products, in trauma, surgery, chemotherapy-induced marrow suppression, etc., etc. People do die from blood loss, and it is tragic to see.
I have been at the roadside and in Emergency rooms and seen patients bleed to death before enough blood could be pumped in to keep them going long enough to allow surgeons to stem the bleeding.

There are times when the use of blood is THE major difference between life and death. Unfortunately it may only be in hindsight that this can be assumed, and even then absolute proof that the blood made the vital difference can be hard to prove in an individual case, so group comparisons are used and the results extrapolated back. If one waits, and doesn't use blood and the person dies, no-one is thankful, usually. Sometimes other treatment options may be available and as good which avoid the issue, but often there is no other option, other than no treatment and letting a disease process continue remorselessly,with pain, morbidity, or death the result.

As far as this case is concerned, I don't know the medical details, such as whether this poor woman developed a bleeding diathesis after massive blood loss, or other complications. We do know that maternal mortality is vastly increased in countries and areas without good medical services, so to totally belittle Medicine and doctors in general is an unbalanced response.

I don't want to 'shoot the messenger" side of your post, as it has a valid criticism side, albeit one-sided, but not all transfusion is bad, and it can save lives.

[Danny Haszard]

FYI
1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?

2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.

3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion

[dave]

In 2004 my father passed away, my mother and 3 older sisters are JW.The rest of my family are christians. My father being a Army Vet. was not allowed to have his flag drapped over his coffen. I was not allowed to read a scripture out of the Bible because it was not the true book so I was told.I was told that if I read out of the Bible that they (JW) would not be involved in the service. I told them that I would read before them and they said no. I told them that I would read after them, and I again I was told that they would have not have part in the service, if I read.They stood steadfast on this til it was time to burry him. The military told my mom that if she wanted him berried in the Vet. Cememtary the flag and all military honors would take place. Had no choice HA HA and the JWs wouldn't have burried him for free or on thier land.

[Danny Haszard]

Blood issue at a glance: The Watchtower leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses say NO blood, BUT they actually DO ALLOW some blood "fractions".

Problem is this variance is so esoteric complicated that by the time special elders appear in the ER with the rule book, the JW patient is at the point of no return,bleeding to death.

NOW,they blame the hospital staff for not having a "cell saver" machine instead of the Watchtower leaders who are responsible for making the rules.

In 20 years there will be 'artificial blood' for anyone who chooses it putting an end to this once and for all

[Vinny]

STILL NOT SURE THE JW'S ARE WRONG ON BLOOD?

HERE COMES MORE...

The bible's prohibition against blood ALWAYS had to do with eating the blood of (((ANIMALS))). Every single time. No exceptions.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK.

Lev. 17:13-14 “‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not "eat" the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”

Lev.7:26 “‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of (((FOWL or that of BEAST))). 27 Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.’”

Leviticus 7:26 specifically says "fowl or beast".... those are what? Animals is what they are. MOSES SAID THAT, NOT VINNY. If the JW's have a hard time with what Moses said then go take it up with Moses then.

One could not, under the law covenant eat or drink ANIMAL blood. It had to be "POURED OUT". A blood transfusions is nothing like this. No animals involved. No eating or drinking involved.

LIFE IS VALUABLE. More valuable than the misapplication of some law. Let's see what Jesus Himself said that may add some light on this issue.

FROM JESUS HIMSELF.

From the JW's NWT bible: Matthew 12:1-14

1 At that season Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath. His disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have YOU not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry?

(KEY POINT) 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was (((not lawful))) for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only? 5 Or, have YOU not read in the Law that on the sabbaths the priests in the temple treat the sabbath as not sacred and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell YOU that something greater than the temple is here.

(MAIN POINT HERE) 7 However, if YOU had understood what this means, ((((I WANT MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE)))),’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones. 8 For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is.” 9 After departing from that place he went into their synagogue; 10 and, look! a man with a withered hand! So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?” that they might get an accusation against him.

(TO DRIVE JESUS POINT HOME) 11 He said to them: “Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out?

APPLICATION OF JESUS MESSAGE FOR ALL CHRISTIANS THEN AND NOW:

12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored sound like the other hand. 14 But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him that they might destroy him.

Now, I have asked dozens of JW's to please read this entire account again. From beginning to end to read it. And then tell this me, in their own words, that Jesus would say to the parents of a three year old child, that was in an auto accident, that was the fault of some drunk driver for example, who was about to DIE due to severe blood loss, but yet whose life COULD be saved by accepting a blood transfusion, from a LIVING human donor, that Jesus would tell that parent, "NO, THIS CHILD MUST NOW NOW DIE".

OR TO THE MOTHER OF TWO LITTLE INFANTS AND A YOUNG HUSBAND, "NO THIS MOTHER MUST NOW DIE". (as just recently happened).

If the JW's believe that Jesus would do just that (AND THEY DO) ,then they have MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THOSE VERSES!!!!

First of all, Jesus says, in his OWN words, from the New World Translation, that "David entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was (((NOT LAWFUL)) for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only".

Why did Jesus even mention this account? David was told beforehand that this was Holy Bread. Yet he requested that bread, received it and ATE it anyway.

Yet NOBODY was punished.

AND JESUS HIMSELF USED THAT ACCOUNT FOR A REASON!!!

What was Jesus point in using that account Aleman?

Before healing the man's withered hand and before his, "if a sheep falls into a pit" illustration, Jesus makes the entire point very clear. He says:

However, if YOU had understood what this means, (((I WANT MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE))),’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones.

For me, this is what I call End of Story. Over and out the JW arguments go.

So what part of what Jesus just taught, do the JW's, or the WT Society NOT GET?

What spin can you try to use on this? You are stuck here. Acts 15:28,29 had to do with ANIMALS BLOOD. DO NOT EAT THE BLOOD OF THE "SLAIN" --slain means dead-- (((ANIMAL))) not living human.

The JW's misapplication of ACTS 15 has been refuted. Not by me, but by God's only begotten Son Himself.

What JESUS said and taught with those verses destroys people needlessly dying for a gross MISAPPLICATION of scripture!

The JW's cannot get out of this hole they are in.

Jesus own words, taken IN CONTEXT make it clear to anybody reading that "mercy" and "life" are far more important than sacrifice of life.

This applies perfectly to a person in need of a modern day blood transfusion. Jesus values LIFE over the sacrifice of life due to a gross and often deadly misapplication of scripture.

A blood transfusion is not a sin, nor against bible principles.

This is why every other religious group on the earth today, including every single one that adheres to any portion of the bible, allows blood transfusions to be used. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Mormons, Jews... EVERYBODY.

It is a personal decision with all of the world's faiths, and not one that should be forced on its members as is with the JW's.

Lets look at some very key bible warnings for all Christians:

Paul said at 1 Cor 6: 9-11 ...9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 And yet that is what some of YOU were. But YOU have been washed clean, but YOU have been sanctified, but YOU have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God."

**** Where is blood, Aleman, if it was such a universal law?

Paul said at Gal 5: 19-21..."19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, 20 idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, 21 envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom.

****Where is blood, Aleman, if it was such a universal law?

Paul also said at Ephesians 4:25 Wherefore, now that YOU have put away falsehood, speak truth each one of YOU with his neighbor, because we are members belonging to one another. 26 Be wrathful, and yet do not sin; let the sun not set with YOU in a provoked state, 27 neither allow place for the Devil. 28 Let the stealer steal no more, but rather let him do hard work, doing with his hands what is good work, that he may have something to distribute to someone in need. 29 Let a rotten saying not proceed out of YOUR mouth, but whatever saying is good for building up as the need may be, that it may impart what is favorable to the hearers. 30 Also, do not be grieving God’s holy spirit, with which YOU have been sealed for a day of releasing by ransom. 31 Let all malicious bitterness and anger and wrath and screaming and abusive speech be taken away from YOU along with all badness. 32 But become kind to one another, tenderly compassionate, freely forgiving one another just as God also by Christ freely forgave YOU.

****Where is blood, Aleman, if it was such a universal law?

Jesus Christ, God's own Son said this, in arguably the Greatest Sermon ever recorded:

Matthew 5:21 “YOU heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder; but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.’ 22 However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Ge·hen´na.

23 “If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar and you there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar, and go away; first make your peace with your brother, and then, when you have come back, offer up your gift.

25 “Be about settling matters quickly with the one complaining against you at law, while you are with him on the way there, that somehow the complainant may not turn you over to the judge, and the judge to the court attendant, and you get thrown into prison. 26 I say to you for a fact, You will certainly not come out from there until you have paid over the last coin of very little value.

27 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to YOU that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If, now, that right eye of yours is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Ge·hen´na. 30 Also, if your right hand is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost than for your whole body to land in Ge·hen´na.

31“Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 However, I say to YOU that everyone divorcing his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

33 “Again YOU heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not swear without performing, but you must pay your vows to Jehovah.’ 34 However, I say to YOU: Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God’s throne; 35 nor by earth, because it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor by your head must you swear, because you cannot turn one hair white or black. 37 Just let YOUR word Yes mean Yes, YOUR No, No; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one.

38 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39 However, I say to YOU: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him. 40 And if a person wants to go to court with you and get possession of your inner garment, let your outer garment also go to him; 41 and if someone under authority impresses you into service for a mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one asking you, and do not turn away from one that wants to borrow from you [without interest].

43 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; 45 that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. 46 For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOU have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if YOU greet YOUR brothers only, what extraordinary thing are YOU doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 YOU must accordingly be perfect, as YOUR heavenly Father is perfect.

*****So Where is blood, if it means what the JW's say it means? Jesus spoke many warnings and counsel.

BUT NOTHING ON BLOOD.

I could quote on and on here.

Blood is just not there. Acts 15 and 21 were for a specific purpose, and repeated what was handed down in the Mosaic Law. Nowhere else does it get mentioned. NOWHERE.

Yet the JW's are willing to sacrifice all the JW's for a law that's not even there.

It would be one thing if it were up to the INDIVIDUAL to decide what they want to do. But it is another thing when it is FORCED on all JW's at the risk of being cut off and shunned, as well as told that they lose God's favor.

Fear tactics used to keep all JW's in line.

Why did not Jesus just say, "No blood at all, in any circumstances whether animal or human for any purpose anywhere for ALL TIME? Could that have been communicated effectively then? But he never said anything like that, anywhere.

Nor did any bible writer.

These are just the facts as they are.

Still not sure the JW's are wrong on blood Aleman?

HERE COMES MORE...

A blood transfusion is not a sin, nor against bible principles. This is why every other religious group on the earth today, including every single one that adheres to any portion of the bible, allows blood transfusions to be used.

Here is a comprehensive explanation of the Acts chapters 15 and 21 accounts:

The letter sent out by the apostles and older men of Jerusalem, recorded at Acts chapter fifteen, uses the term “abstain” in connection with things sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled and fornication. The Greek term they used (apékhomai) has the basic meaning of “to stand off from.” The Watch Tower publications imply that, with regard to blood, it has a total, all-embracing sense. Thus, the publication You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, page 216, says: “`abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into your body at all.” Similarly the Watchtower of May 1, 1988, page 17, says: “Walking in Jesus’ footsteps would mean not taking blood into the body either orally or in any other way.” But does this term, as used in the Scriptures, actually carry the absolute sense these publications imply? Or can it instead have a relative sense, relating to a specific and limited application?

That it may apply, not in a total, all-embracing sense, but in a limited, specific way can be seen from its use in such texts as 1 Timothy 4:3. There the apostle Paul warns that some professed Christians would introduce teachings of a pernicious nature, “forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving.” Clearly he did not mean that these persons would command others to abstain totally, in any way, from all foods created by God. That would mean total fasting and lead to death. He was obviously referring to their prohibiting specific foods, evidently those prohibited under the Mosaic law.

Similarly, at 1 Peter 2:11 the apostle admonishes:
Beloved, I exhort you as aliens and temporary residents to keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which are the very ones that carry on a conflict against the soul.

If we were to take this expression literally, in an absolute sense, it would mean we could not satisfy any fleshly desire at all. That certainly is not the meaning of the apostle’s words. We have many “fleshly desires,” including the desire to eat, to breathe, to sleep, to enjoy recreation and a host of other desires, which are perfectly proper and good. So, “abstaining from fleshly desires” applied only in the context of what the apostle wrote, relating, not to all fleshly desires, but only to harmful, sinful desires which do indeed “carry on a conflict against the soul.”

The question then is, in what context did James and the apostolic council use the expression to “abstain” from blood? The council itself specifically dealt with the effort of some to demand of Gentile Christians that they not only be circumcised but also “observe the law of Moses." That was the issue the apostle Peter addressed, observance of the Mosaic law, which he described as a burdensome “yoke.” When James spoke before the gathering and outlined his recommendation of things the Gentile Christians should be urged to abstain from—things polluted by idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood—he followed this up by the statement:

For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.—Acts 15:19-21.

His recommendation therefore quite evidently took into account what people heard when ‘Moses was read’ in the synagogues. James knew that in ancient times there were Gentiles, “people of the nations,” who lived in the land of Israel, dwelling among the Jewish community. What had been the requirements placed upon them by the Mosaic law? They were not required to be circumcised, but they were required to abstain from certain practices and these are outlined in the book of Leviticus, chapters 17 and 18. That law specified that, not only Israelites, but also the “alien residents” among them should abstain from engaging in idolatrous sacrifices (Leviticus 17:7-9), from eating blood, including that of unbled dead animals (Leviticus 17:10-16), and from practices designated sexually immoral (including incest and homosexual practices).—Leviticus 18:6-26.

While the land of Israel itself was now under Gentile control, with large numbers of Jews living outside in various countries (those doing so being called the “Diaspora,” meaning the “scattered [ones]”), James knew that in many cities throughout the Roman Empire the Jewish community was like a microcosm reflecting the situation in Palestine in ancient times, in that it was quite common for Gentiles to attend synagogue gatherings of the Jews, and thus to mingle with them.

The early Christians themselves, both Jewish and Gentile Christians, continued to frequent these synagogue gatherings, even as we know that Paul and others did much of their preaching and teaching there. James’ reference to the reading in Moses in the synagogue in city after city certainly gives basis for believing that, when listing the things he had immediately before named, he had in mind the abstentions that Moses had set forth for Gentiles within the Jewish community in ancient times.

KEY POINT:

As we have seen, James listed not only the very same things found in the book of Leviticus, (((but even in the very same order))): abstention from idolatrous sacrifice, blood, things strangled (hence unbled), and from sexual immorality.

He recommended observance of those same abstentions on the part of Gentile believers and the evident reason for this abstention was the circumstance then prevailing, that of an intermixture of Jew and Gentile in the Christian gatherings and the need to maintain peace and harmony within that circumstance. When Gentile Christians were urged to ‘abstain from blood,’ this clearly was to be understood, not in some all-embracing sense, but in the specific sense of refraining from eating blood, something abhorrent to Jews.

To take the matter beyond that, and to try to assign to blood of itself a sort of “taboo” status, is to lift the matter out of its Scriptural and historical context and to impose upon it a meaning that is not actually there.

(Taken from Commentary Press, by Ray Franz, former Governing Body Member of Jehovah's Witnesses)

STILL NOT SURE THE JW'S ARE WRONG ON BLOOD?

HERE COMES MORE ONCE AGAIN...

WHY THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY BLOOD POLICY IS WRONG:

****A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: "If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins..." illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die.

A transfusion of blood replaces the volume of blood lost (much like replacing an organ) which is needed to sustain life, nothing more. No nourishment is gained by a blood transfusion, as would be the case when eating or drinking the blood, which is forbidden. This illustration often used by the society does apply with alcohol and other digestible foods, but not for blood. It simply stays in your system indefinitely.

****The scriptures in both the Hebrew and Greek sections of the bible, which say: "blood must be drained out" and to, "abstain from... blood" were always referring directly to the eating or drinking of animal blood. The blood of the animal that had been killed was to be "poured out" rather than eaten or drank. This act of faith demonstrated to Jehovah that the life that had been taken belongs to him. The blood of the animal represents the life of that animal. Humans do have the right to take animals for food only because the creator allows us to do so. Pouring out the blood first, acknowledges this arrangement.

By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application.

In addition, the one supplying the blood for a transfusion has not died at all, which was always the case when an animal was bled. A "living" donor instead provides the needed volume of blood-fluid that has been lost for another "living" individual. And in many cases over the years, as a last resort this has been and can still be a life-saving medical act. In other cases by refusing this particular medical treatment because of our stand against blood transfusions, lives have been and will continue to be lost. Is this what God wants, and is this premature loss of life really necessary?

****We can also learn something about this from Jesus very own example. Jesus was also willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath (something against the mosaic law) in order to save lives, or even just heal the sick. Would not Jesus have made an exception then to a dietary rule in order to save a human life?

In Luke 14:5-6, the bible account says: "And he said to them: "Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" 6 And they were not able to answer back on these things." The account in Mathew 12:11 goes even further, it says: "So they (Pharisees) asked him "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?" that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath."

If Jesus was willing to value the life of an ANIMAL enough to rescue that animal's life despite this "work" being done on a Sabbath, how much more so then should the life of a human being be given priority over the strict interpretation of the law? Well, we need not really ask since Jesus answered this himself when he said in verse 12, "All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!". Yes rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is the loving and merciful thing to do. Additionally, Jesus performed many other miraculous works on the Sabbath. Yet to work on the Sabbath was to bring the death penalty upon oneself. And in fact, the scriptures actually record this penalty being meted out to a Sabbath violator. (See Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36. Here we see clear evidence though that Jesus appreciated the principle that love triumphs over law. That when life is at stake, (even an animal's life), rules can be set aside as circumstances require. LIFE is valuable and precious.

Jesus showed this love for life and people over and over. While by contrast the oppressive, rule-keeping religious leaders often missed the entire purpose of the law. By not allowing a blood transfusion to be given, especially in last-resort situations, but rather allowing these ones to die instead, is the proper "respect" for life being shown as Jesus clearly demonstrated? Imagine if this involved allowing one of "our own family members" to die due to such a strict stand by some religious body of men representing the WT Society.

****I've also appreciated another example that demonstrates this same "principle" of Jesus' valuing a person's LIFE over the written law. It had to do with the woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years. Under the Mosaic Law a running discharge made her "unclean", and anyone even touching her would also have to wash and be considered unclean until evening. However, she went even further than this by actually touching Jesus garment secretly in hopes of getting healed without anyone knowing. Jesus as we know, perceived that power went out from him and realized what she had done. Others too were watching. Notice though, that rather than condemn this woman for what she did, Jesus instead compassionately tells her: "Your faith has made you well. Go in peace, be in good health from your grievous sickness...." Once again we can see the spirit of the law (and the value of a human life) taking precedence over the supposed LETTER of the law, which the woman had clearly broken.

****Acts 15:28-29 (which is the foundation scripture for society's position against blood transfusions since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force -this too is the society's view-) reads: 28 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"

The society considers this to be an all-encompassing, absolute and eternal command. However, notice that along with abstaining from blood, we also hear the command to abstain from "things sacrificed to idols" Now, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, we can see that Paul there helps the reader to see that the "eating of food sacrificed to idols" was really a conscience matter. Obviously then, the Acts 15:28-29 could not have such a broad, absolute, universal meaning since another part of that same scripture is considered a conscience matter by the apostle Paul in another verse. This decision instead was rendered so that the newer "Gentile" Christians would be conscious not to stumble the more traditional Jewish Christians, many of which were still rooted in Mosaic Law. The decision was acknowledged that they were not under Mosaic Law any longer. However to prevent unnecessarily stumbling of these traditional Jewish Christians, this decree was given.

This is also how bible scholars today understand these verses. The account at Acts 21:20-32 gives further evidence that this decree was given because the older, traditional Jewish Christians were being stumbled, since once again this very same prohibition found at Acts 15:28, 29 is repeated ten years later in Acts 21:25. Notice specifically how verses 24 brings out that this decree was given because the Jewish Christians thought Paul had discarded all Jewish law and customs which were causing these Jewish Christians to be upset and stumbled.

Paul's words quoted above at 1 Cor 8:4-8 once again only adds further evidence that this command was not an eternal, universal law from God since again, he there states that "eating foods sacrificed to idols" (also included in Acts 15:28,29 along with blood) is a personal decision for each individual Christian.

The command to abstain from fornication however is an absolute, eternal, universal command, since it is clearly repeated often throughout the Christian Greek scriptures. Not the case at all regarding blood. Nowhere else is this mentioned. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21 contain many specific warnings for Christians, but blood is not one of them. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Greek scriptures. And even if it were considered a universal, eternal command, which clearly it is not, that decree then would be regarding the EATING of animal blood, and not the receiving of blood fluid from a living human donor to another living human donor.

****If consuming blood was such a capitol offense, why were Saul's men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35)

****I also wanted to find out how the most traditional, conservative and orthodox Jews today felt about accepting blood transfusions, since they still object to any traces of blood in their meat and other strict dietary guidelines from the bible by insisting on kosher foods. After researching, I found out that they DO accept blood transfusions, considering these bible commands to be based on the eating and drinking of animal blood; something a blood transfusion is not.

****Another thing that muddies the blood transfusion issue altogether for me is the 2000 decree that certain blood "FRACTIONS" are now permissible.

Many of these are now considered a "conscience matter". Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these "fractions" take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes.

Some hemophiliac treatments for example, (which have been long permitted) require the collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2500 blood donors for a single treatment). These are not just some made-up numbers thrown out here, but can be easily verified. Other more common "fractions" still require many liters of blood, from many different people to donate. It is often just a "concentrated" form of blood.

These facts bring up two different, problematic issues in my mind then. For one, how can we say that we as Jehovah's Witnesses "abstain from blood", since all of these fractions that Watchtower Society now permits like albumin, EPO, hemoglobin, blood serums, Immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments (clotting factors VIII & IX) clearly tap into the world's blood supply and can be (and are) used by Jehovah's Witnesses today? And two, if then, Jehovah's Witnesses can with a clear conscience now USE these fractions that come from the blood supply, why are they then forbidden from donating to this same blood supply that they now are allowed to tap into? And, why are they still not allowed to store their OWN blood? The pouring of blood "back to the ground" was long ago nailed to the torture stake when Jesus sacrificed his life; hence they are no longer under that Mosaic series of laws.

It sure appears to me as well as most others then, that the JW's no longer "abstain from blood", and can and do dip into the worlds blood supply, often in great quantity, yet they are still not allowed to put back into this same supply, nor can they store their own blood.

****Another problem with "fractions" is that certain fractions such as "Albumin" ARE acceptable by the society, but others making up even smaller amounts are not.

"Albumin" for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This "authorized" fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society.

Another fraction, Blood "Platelets" are needed to help cause clotting, so people do not bleed to death (especially important with chemotherapy, other cancer treatments and hemophiliacs). Yet platelets are another fraction NOT authorized. Platelets make up only .17 percent of whole blood. That's not even one quarter of one percent, (a far smaller portion than albumin). Yet these platelets are forbidden by the Society.

I have read the literature and fail to see the logic of this "approved" and "disapproved" list with no explanations anywhere. It's also worth noting that if you add up all of the fractions that ARE acceptable by the society, you come up with a total of 98 percent of what makes up whole blood that is pumping through our veins right now. However, these cannot be taken together as whole blood, but must be instead broken down and taken separately, in minute fractions.

It has been compared before to being allowed to eat ham, bread and cheese, as long as they're kept and eaten separately. Yet not being allowed to eat them together for instance as a ham and cheese sandwich. I just fail to see the reasonableness in this kind of doctrine. "Hemopure" is an acceptable blood-product that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to use. It is made from purified bovine, or in simpler terms, Cow's Blood. How can JW's be allowed to use this purified animal blood today, yet not be allowed to use their own blood, or that of another living human donor?

So then, when I add up all of the facts listed above here;

That blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood.

That the scriptures themselves are always referring to the "eating or drinking" of ANIMAL blood that is forbidden (not transfusions).

How Paul shows at 1 Corinthians. 8:4-8 that the Acts 15:29 command is not all encompassing command but had a particular purpose.

That Saul's men were not killed after eating blood.

How the strictest of Jews today allow blood transfusions.

That no other religion on earth forbids blood transfusions based on what the bible actually says.

That Jesus clearly demonstrated how life (even that of an animal) was more important than a narrow, strict interpretation of the law, with the "animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath" illustration he used, and the "Woman with a flow of blood" real-life example.

How the one donating blood is a LIVE donor and offering this blood to another person that is also alive and in need.

That the Society was wrong before about forbidding vaccinations and organ transplants and then reversed these decisions. Many loyal Witnesses nonetheless died from such stands.

And, the Society has now changed its position once again, instead of saying no to all blood, to now say "fractions" of blood are acceptable, even though the particular fractions approved and disapproved seem to have no particular rhyme or reason and we are still not allowed to donate blood nor store their own. Though they can use cow's blood.

It seems fairly easy for me then, to come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the society's position on blood transfusions today.

AND FINALLY, 20 QUESTIONS FOR ALEMAN (or any JW) TO ANSWER:

1- JW's, would you allow your own family members to die? For a policy as butchered as this one? From an organization with many similar messed-up policies? Let them die or allow them to live, if you have the choice? Please answer.

2- JW's, If it was illegal to steal an entire automobile, would it then be legal to just steal parts of that same car? Why would this same analogy not apply to WT Society and Blood? Please answer.

3- JW's, even though Jesus sermon on the mount covered a vast array of subjects on what is not acceptable, why was blood not listed even one time? Why did not Jesus just say, "No blood at all, in any circumstances whether animal or human for any purpose anywhere for ALL TIME? Could that have been communicated effectively then? But he never said anything like that, anywhere. Please answer.

4- Paul also had NUMEROUS WARNINGS for Christians. But blood is NOWHERE MENTIONED. Why now? Jesus had numerous warnings, but NOWHERE WAS BLOOD MENTIONED. Please answer.

5-The stakes by forbidding blood transfusions are HUGE. People DIE here for this argument. That's why you better have a VERY GOOD argument before you push this thing on 6 .7 million people. That's also why NO vaccinations, NO organ transplants was so bad to so many people. Again, people DID DIE without needing to. They reversed it too because it was bad news and wrong. What does that say about the WT Society to you then? Please answer.

6- If you were not a JW, would you have decided that blood transfusions were wrong? Please answer.

7- Where does albumin come from? Please tell us wher it comes from. How about Hemoglobins, interferons, interleukins, clotting factors, globulins, albumin etc? Are these WT approved fractions made with something other than blood? Please answer?

8- Please tell us, if the old law command to pour blood to the ground was done away with when Jesus died, why are JW's not allowed store their OWN blood for their own operation? Please explain that one.

9- Please tell us why JW's cannot DONATE blood since they obviously are allowed to TAKE fractions of blood from the world's blood supply? Why can they not PUT BACK blood to the same place where they are allowed take it from? Please explain that.

10- JW's, why are LARGER fractions of blood allowed over some of the SMALLER ones? Please explain all of this.

11- Are all OTHER religions, scholars and conservative Jews wrong then? Are only JW's right? What though about that long list of OTHER embarrassing mistakes by the WT Society? Please comment about those too. Do you think that since the WT Society was wrong about ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS, they might be wrong about blood too? Please answer.

12- For a long time the WT Society said an Organ transplant WAS like eating and called it cannibalism. Remember that? Why did the WT change it up and now allow organ transplants?

BECAUSE THEY REALIZED IT IS NOT THE SAME AS EATING, AND EVEN SAID JUST THAT.

The JW blood transfusion "is the same as eating" argument just got flushed down the drain. The Society's position on Organ Transplants "NOT BEING THE SAME AS EATING" just destroyed the JW point of view that blood cannot be used. Where is the JW answer to this problem? Please answer.

13- Please tell those on this board just (((WHO))) gets to decide what fractions get to make the MAJOR list (and are NOT allowed), and which fractions make the MINOR list (and ARE allowed)?

14- Please tell those on this board, WHAT CRITERIA is used to determine what fractions get to make the MAJOR list (and are NOT allowed), and which fractions make the MINOR list (and ARE allowed) since your "cell theory" is kaput by plasma? Why NO to platelets, white blood cells, red blood cells and plasma, but yes to interferons, interleukens, globulins, clotting factors, hemoglobin etc. Please tell us WHY this list with no rhyme or reason then since your cell theory is useless? Please answer.

15- JW's, Tell this board what the WT Organization's LONG LIST OF MISTAKES ON PREVIOUS MEDICAL ISSUES does for the credibility of that WT Organization responsible for such mistakes? Please answer up.

16-JW's, the WT Organization has a terrible record in times past and currently with regards to medical, doctrinal and historical mistakes. One of the worst anywhere. When an organization decides to make decisions for all of its members, with very significant penalties imposed on those that do not follow such decisions, should not such an organization have a reputation of EXCELLENCE in general, or at least in regards to similar kinds of issues; in this case medical issues that can have a very significant impact on people's lives?

17- What does the fact that the WT Society was outright WRONG on the previous medical prohibitions against Vaccinations as well as Organ Transplants, which literally cost lives to be lost unnecessarily say about the WT Society to you?

18- JW's, does having the VERY SAME religious organization making end of the world predictions a dozen times, in writing, all of which proved false, give even greater reason for concern with such an organization today? The reputation and trustworthiness of the JW organization itself is relevant in regards to these other issues.

19- JW's, what effect should these past problems have on the overall credibility of this organization that is currently standing ALONE amongst all of the other world faiths by prohibiting blood transfusions of its members?

20- If Fractions are not blood as WT likes to try telling us, then why not allow ALL FRACTIONS? Why not make ALL BLOOD A CONSCIENCE MATTER. Please answer.