I haven't read the three pages of responses, only your initial post.
But I will throw in a comment before I am influenced by these intelligent people,
then see what they had to say.
If you do not believe in God, the Bible, the value of preserving human life and preventing sorrow, then what basis is there left for asserting that refusing life-saving blood would be wrong?
On this one issue, I don't insist that others agree with me. I just know that the JW's
twist the scriptures to make the claim that the Bible says they should not have
life-saving blood. I just say that a mind-control cult enforces it's doctrine on the
unsuspecting members who have been duped.
Now, if you don't want a blood transfusion for your own reasons, that is fine. If you want
to argue that the Bible should be the standard, the Bible is clear that you should not have
a blood transfusion- well expect an argument. But if you don't insist that your way is the
only right way, do what you want.
Also, on the point of believing in nothing, therefore not knowing that JW's are wrong, it's
faulty logic. I can know that many things are false or not true without ever discovering the
ultimate truth. I can dismiss the religion of JW's if I have found fault with their claims, but
still not know if there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that has created us all, or perhaps a
bunch of higher-evolved creatures that act as Gods.
You can determine that a law or a leader or a practice among people is bad for them, but
not have the absolute answer as to what law should be in place, what leader should rule,
or what practice should replace the bad one.