by Terry 80 Replies latest watchtower medical
Jehovah makes it clear in leviticus and in acts 15; 28-29
In order to make your scriptural citations relevant to transfusion medicine your are going to have to demonstrate either a physical or moral equivalency between the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood.
Can you?
Just to clarify--I meant a heart attack from the stress on the organs, not psychological stress.
GG
see it from a medical journal. your hate may run through your veins for this subject but its quite simple,
Oh yes superhooper..forgot - welcome to the board...now, as for that statement - you don't know if I hate anything and/or if I do what any of those things may be. You don't know me. You came into the discussion insisting that taking blood was not good - so why should I have to look up the stats? Don't you have those handy? I asked questions based on your statements. I again reiterate - I believe it should be a matter of choice. Not direction from cult leaders who use twisted interpretation of scripture to enforce punishment on others if they refuse to follow that direction. Not direction from cult leaders who martyr their followers when they die from obedience. That's like Jim Jones living to tell the tale having just put to death 2,000 people and praising them for doing so - sickening. There are many opinions - yours in regard to blood is just that - an opinion. When my sister who happens to be a nurse, needed blood after the birth of her child, she recieved it - 20 years later she is still as healthy as ever and the kid is all grown up and living a productive life. Now, had she not taken that course and died by abstaining - well, she'd still be dead and her kids would have had no mother. So I suppose not everyone in the medical community believes as you do - but I go back to my statement - it should be a choice. sammieswife.
to the good girl
a student nurse question if you could be so kind to answer
if a person is undergoing chemo and it compremises a persons immune system which it does, taking blood t would surely compremise it further? since the immune system is already weak?
and if a person is taking blood in trauma, ami correct (very diplomatic now) in saying the blood cells take 24 hours to activate anyway? thats if they are accepted by the body?
thanking you my old china
S.H
ok sammies wifey
you just seemed like you hate the subject
oh and witnesses are not a cult. thats your opinion. organised religion.- thats a fact
i dont see the point in spending my time looking at journal, wont take you 5 secs
google scholar
blood transfutions
type it correctly tho
not like i did.
superhooper:
you may see that other than the trauma patients long term and short term health is better.
I don't doubt it. Most elective surgery is done without blood from a third-party. Surgeons can take their time, minimise blood loss during the operation or even store some of the patient's own blood beforehand. The problem is the trauma patients. When someone's lost half the blood in their body, there is no rational alternative to a blood transfusion, risky though that may be. Some day there will certainly be a better alternative, just as there will be a better solution for cancer than chemotherapy. For the moment though, if your primary interest is in saving the patient's life (something that is not true for JWs) you would agree to the best treatment available, which is often a blood transfusion.
Great to hear a little more, SuperHooper -
Here is my reaction!!!
* I was pretty sure you were not a troll. Sorry about the death in the family; sometimes these things do just happen, blood or no.
* Do not be sorry on bluntness or english. You do not fully understand bluntness and bad english until you have grown up in Oklahoma City and lived in Dallas, Texas. At least we don't have a funny accent, though...
* Maybe it's the subject for a new thread, but for me - and a lot of others here, I suppose - blood transfusion is not my first complaint with the witnesses. For me, it is the continued stubborn false prophecy and the constant mind control that goes with this religion. I will grant you that only a relatively few die because of not having blood after a high trauma accident. However, think how many people have completely given their lives over believing that the end would be coming in 1914, 1918, 1925, 1935, 1941, 1975, etc.etc.etc. Then, they get told that the generation did not really mean what they were previously taught.
* And you are so right about taking a religious stand on the blood fractions and then later being told that they are OK now. In the US, we were told to resist the draft and go to federal prison instead of being a consciencous objector. Now it is up to your conscience. Same principle.
James, stick around and enjoy the fun!
oh and acts scripture is new test etc so its applicable to us, didt make myself clear.eating it is just a law, which was asked just to obey, it signified life. simple. although anything you eat is surly going to effect you anyway( thats not a fact it just seems logical tell me if im wrong oh wise jedi master)
Superhooper,
Don't fall into the trap of equivocation. It's a logical fallacy.
Drinking a glass of water and drowing in a lake can both loosely be described as "Taking In Water."
They are not physical equivalents. The body is not one system, but many and there is a huge difference between taking water into your respiratory system (Your lungs) vs. taking water into your digestive system (Your stomach.)
The JW's seem very fond of the phrase, "Taking In Blood" but this sort of superficial similarity is not equality --There is a huge difference between using blood as food vs. using blood as blood. The Bible does not address the latter of the two.
god had standards
{bursts into laughter}
sKally
