Winnipeg Free Press, article by Kerry Louderback-Wood (scan) Mar. 1/07

by kwintestal 22 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Please show me where Ms. Wood is incorrect.

    Do red blood cells not naturally move between mother and child during gestation? If they do then why are red blood cells banned?

    Do white blood cells not naturally move between mother and baby during breat feeding? If they do why are white blood cells transfusions banned?

    Does whole blood not naturally transfuse between two humans (fetuses) during monchorionic gestation (identical twins)? If it does why is whole blood banned?

    Is there a place in the Bible where red blood cells are banned and hemoglobin is not banned?

    Is there a place in the Bible that defines what the major components of Blood are and minor components?

    Is there a place in the Bible that say it is not okay to have your own blood stored separately from your body but it is okay to have your own blood stored out of your body in a tube and machine or if necessary it is close by you during the entire medical procedure?

    Why does the leadership say the blood doctrine is a Bible based doctrine and then turn around and use a text book for medical technicians that is not authoritative as its basis for defining the main components of blood?

    Why does the leadership allow blood during testing to be separated from the body and then transfused back into the body when other donated blood is not allowed?

    Why does the leadership say this is a long standing doctrine when in fact the doctrine has been only around since 1940 and has changed many times in an untactful way?

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    Her article sounds almost word for word what I wrote to my friends and family in my pre-df'ing letter. So of course i would have to say, Great article Kerry!

  • Jourles
    Jourles

    Oh, and I just noticed that her article made it on page A13. That is the major news section. Not some obscure Religious or Entertainment section where only a handful of people might read through it. People who buy a newspaper generally buy it to read through the entire A section and then other parts that interest them. This should help create a few waves in the local congregations.

  • Nosferatu
    Nosferatu
    Anyone on JWD in Winnipeg?

    Me and Twitch are. Thanx for posting this article. I don't get the paper, so I never know what's in there

  • ButtLight
    ButtLight

    Great article! Thanks.

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    Neo, you show your ignorance when you take a mere illustration, based on lure, as black & white. It's plain to see.that the Watchtower has warped your thinking. In any event, here's some interesting reading on your apple question.....

    Skeeter

    Was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden an apple?

    24-Nov-2006


    Dear Cecil:

    Where did the idea come from that the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden was an apple? Genesis just says "fruit." Does Jewish tradition have it as an apple, or is it strictly a Christian thing? Come to think of it, the fruit of discord of the Greek goddess Eris was also an apple. Why are apples considered to be the troublemakers of the produce world? — Sluggo, via e-mail

    Cecil replies:

    The apple's many admirers like to portray it as a symbol of wholesomeness — apple cheeks, an apple for teacher, and so forth. Don't be deceived. This is a fruit with a history.

    Let's review the story. Genesis depicts Adam and Eve leading the plush life in Eden. They may eat fruit from any tree except one, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Unsurprisingly, they eat the forbidden fruit and are expelled from paradise. As you suggest, the original Hebrew says only "fruit," but in latter-day Western art ranging from serious religious painting to about a million cartoons, the item in question is invariably depicted as an apple.

    But it wasn't always. Early rabbis suggested the fruit was:

    • the fig, because the next verse mentions sewing together fig leaves to make loincloths;

    • grapes, which later cause trouble for Noah, not to mention many other vino lovers;

    • the citron, a lemonlike fruit which in Hebrew is etrog, a pun on ragag, "desire";

    • wheat, khitah in Hebrew and thus a pun on khet, "sin" — a stretch, considering wheat isn't a fruit and doesn't grow on trees; or
    • the carob, because in Hebrew its name puns on the word for "destruction."

    Many modern scholars think the author(s) of the text had the pomegranate in mind.

    Genesis doesn't mention apples, but Proverbs 25:11 says a timely word is like apples of gold in a setting of silver. More significantly, in the Song of Solomon the apple is an erotic symbol indicating sweetness, desire, and the female breast, which gives you an idea how things are starting to go, metaphorwise.

    Early Christian scholars often took the forbidden fruit to be an apple, possibly because of the irresistible pun suggested by the Latin malum, which means both "apple" and "evil." At least one early Latin translation of the bible uses "apple" instead of "fruit." A contributing factor no doubt was that apples were a lot more popular in Europe than in the Middle East, where it's generally too hot for them to thrive.

    It wasn't just Christians who picked up on the apple's racy side. The most famous apple of Greek myth is the one you cite, the gold apple labeled "To the fairest" that Eris, goddess of discord, throws among the guests at a wedding party, leading to the judgment of Paris (he has to choose whether Hera, Aphrodite, or Athena is the most beautiful) and ultimately to the Trojan War. You get the picture: apples may look good, but they're trouble. Christian scholars knew the Greek myths and adapted many to their new religion.

    Still, the apple wasn't the unanimous choice for forbidden fruit. Carved depictions of Adam and Eve with apples are found in early Christian catacombs and on sarcophagi. The apple was the favored representation of the forbidden fruit in Christian art in France and Germany beginning around the 12th century. But Byzantine and Italian artists tended to go with the fig.

    In fact, you can read Christian iconography as a long, twilight struggle between figs and apples over which is the alpha temptation symbol. The apple has a lot to recommend it: red (blood) or golden (greed), round (fertility) and sweet-tasting (desire). The fig, on the other hand, has a certain phallic look, noted as far back as the ancient Greeks, who, admittedly, thought everything looked phallic. By the Renaissance, almost simultaneously we have Albrecht Dürer depicting Adam and Eve and the serpent with an apple (1504, 1507), and Michelangelo equipping the same cast with figs on the Sistine Chapel ceiling (circa 1510).

    Ultimately the apple prevailed. In Areopagitica (1644), Milton explicitly described the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil as an apple, and that was pretty much the ball game. Islamic tradition, however, commonly represents the forbidden fruit as the fig or olive.

    A related question: what's meant by the "knowledge of good and evil"? Take your pick:

    • Ethical discrimination, knowing right from wrong. One problem with this interpretation: if Adam and Eve had no knowledge of right and wrong before eating the fruit, how would they know disobedience was wrong?

    • Knowledge of sex. The first thing Adam and Eve do after their snack is realize they're naked.

    • Knowledge, period. In this view, "good and evil" is an encompassing bookend phrase, like “A to Z.” Having tasted of the tree, mankind wants to know everything.

    In any event, the gist is clear: knowledge = the loss of innocence; ignorance = bliss.

    —CECIL ADAMS

    [ Comment on this answer ]

    Cecil Adams can deliver the Straight Dope on any topic. Write Cecil at [email protected].

  • yesidid
    yesidid

    Nero...............please take your tongue out of your cheek.............it will soon make a permanent stretch mark.

    yesidid

  • Neo
    Neo

    Some didn't catch that was an ironic tongue-in-cheek comment. In fact, I was one of the very first to applaud Kerry Louderback-Wood for her Journal of Church and Estate article. (Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE' ) The above post just illustrates how the JW mind works: they find a little, irrelevant excuse to reject the whole thrust of the argument.

    My words unwittingly sparked one of the greatest sum-ups I've ever seen of the blood fraud - thank you very much for your post, hawkaw. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And, thank you once again for one great article, L-W! Your points are the ones I always raise when I discuss the blood issue. They are the weakest and most ridiculous elements of this horrendous doctrine.

    bttt

  • sf
    sf

    Kerry, congrats!!

    Nice to see Joe and Barbara posting. Hope 'things' are well.

    hawkaw, THIS should be part of Kerry's essay. A sort of Question For the Readers format. Better yet! A great flyer to use in the field work. Thanks!

    Do red blood cells not naturally move between mother and child during gestation? If they do then why are red blood cells banned?

    Do white blood cells not naturally move between mother and baby during breat feeding? If they do why are white blood cells transfusions banned?

    Does whole blood not naturally transfuse between two humans (fetuses) during monchorionic gestation (identical twins)? If it does why is whole blood banned?

    Is there a place in the Bible where red blood cells are banned and hemoglobin is not banned?

    Is there a place in the Bible that defines what the major components of Blood are and minor components?

    Is there a place in the Bible that say it is not okay to have your own blood stored separately from your body but it is okay to have your own blood stored out of your body in a tube and machine or if necessary it is close by you during the entire medical procedure?

    Why does the leadership say the blood doctrine is a Bible based doctrine and then turn around and use a text book for medical technicians that is not authoritative as its basis for defining the main components of blood?

    Why does the leadership allow blood during testing to be separated from the body and then transfused back into the body when other donated blood is not allowed?

    Why does the leadership say this is a long standing doctrine when in fact the doctrine has been only around since 1940 and has changed many times in an untactful way?

    Excellent!

    sKally

  • sf
    sf

    If I may, I found this piece to a bit more copy/ paste/ printer-friendly:

    From the Winnipeg Free Press

    Thu Mar 1 2007

    By Kerry Louderback-Wood

    The leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses publicly declares that followers "abstain from blood" in accordance with the Book of Acts in the Bible. Blood that leaves the body has to be returned to the dust of the ground, according to Leviticus.

    Following this ruling led to 22 children being "martyred"-- dying rather than receiving a transfusion -- according to the May 22, 1994, edition of Awake!

    So it's prohibited and that can be fatal. Yet, the public would be surprised to learn the leadership actually allows for many blood therapies and have frequently changed their doctrine since it began in the 1940s.

    I was born a third-generation Jehovah's Witness. My mother entered the religion in the 1950s, a time when both whole blood and blood product transfusions were banned. If taken, she would have faced severe shunning by our families and friends, as well as God's rejection. In 2005, my mother died of heart failure after refusing a life-saving transfusion to treat anemia.

    Following my mother's death, I revisited the leadership's stand on blood. To my horror, my family did not know that in 2000, the leadership began permitting hemoglobin transfusions that could have saved her.

    Hemoglobin constitutes 97 per cent of the red blood cell by weight. It is responsible for transporting oxygen to our tissues. Hemoglobin looks just like whole blood as it hangs in a transfusion bag.

    So, how did hemoglobin, made from stored, donated blood, suddenly become acceptable? Had the Bible changed? Why didn't members know? Shouldn't this blood be poured on the ground?

    Today, the leadership permits followers to take any "blood fraction" made from donated, stored red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets or plasma. To make fractions, surplus blood is sold to manufacturers who, in turn, separate out the desired blood product. Fractions are made from many units of stored blood. Rather than pouring the blood on the ground, I found out the leadership permitted 2,500 units of donated, stored blood to make one dose of a clotting agent called Factor VIII, a life-saving treatment used by hemophiliacs.

    Interestingly, Jehovah's Witnesses do not donate blood. Is it not both hypocritical and selfish to accept blood products made from other people's donated blood, but not donate blood back into the common pool?

    The Associated Jehovah's Witness for Reform on Blood is a group of Jehovah's Witnesses who have united to change this blood policy so that Witnesses get the medical help they need.

    According to their website, www.ajwrb.org, the religiously approved "blood fractions" include hemoglobin (14.8 per cent of whole blood), albumin (2.6 per cent), globulins (1.6 per cent), clotting factors (0.2 per cent), interferons/ interleukins and wound healing factors (1.3 per cent), just to name a few.

    Since blood is approximately 80 per cent water, each fraction of water would total a whole unit of blood if combined! The leadership's blood policy can be likened to Adam and Eve being told not to eat the apple; but apple sauce, cider and pie made from it are OK to eat.

    The leadership does not make clear that the allowed fractions plus water equals whole blood. Instead, it suggests the allowed fractions are "minute." Is it not hypocritical to say you "abstain from blood" but then in reality accept every blood fraction?
    During the 1990s, the leadership repeatedly explained that the decision to approve the blood component albumin was based, not on the Bible, but on analyzing the natural world. They reasoned that albumin was not sinful since it naturally transferred between a mother and fetus during gestation. Oddly, red blood cells also naturally transfer during gestation and white blood cells transfer during breastfeeding. So why does the leadership still forbid red or white blood cell transfusions?

    Followers are not allowed to pre-deposit their own whole blood for use in elective surgery. Yet, the leadership permits followers to use their own whole blood or red blood cell transfusions using cell tagging techniques. How can this be?

    Apparently, the leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses wants all to believe its view has not changed. The bottom line is that the leadership touts its infamous "no blood policy" as it proudly martyred those 22 children and their recent actions with the sextuplets.

    But, their actions appear to prove they no longer believe in their own policy. If blood is to be poured out onto the ground, the use of blood products and cell tagging should be prohibited. Since this is not the case, why can't all of blood be used to sustain life? The leadership's actions prove its insincerity, yet it stands ready to shun any follower who disagrees with it.

    This bizarre hypocrisy would be a curiosity if its effects were not so serious. Fortunately, Canadian judges have demonstrated that they will protect children from this lunacy. But adults and advanced minors die.

    Kerry Louderback-Wood, author of

    Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation, Journal of Church and State.
    sKally

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit