Blood Fraction or Blood Transfusion- Are they same?

by Scott77 22 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  About blood fractions they once were totally against all of them then they allowed some and now I hear they will allow all, but don't quote me on that.

  Their blood fraction policies change from year to year so where and what they are now is just guess work, you'd have to research their most recent articles

  on the subject to find out the latest. Either way this was one of their most dumbest and volatile doctrines that they ever produced and there were many,

  and I might add their most deadliest too, hundreds of JWS die every year prematurely just by this one inaccurate bible interpretation.

  Don't ever second guess this policy to change though, the ramifications would be too enormous to handle not to mention the legal costs.
• 

  Scott77

  Homerovah the Almighty,

  What makes me sick even more is the fact the WTS keeps winning most of the law suits with few losses. I tend to think of that the more they loss in court cases and the related costs, the more willl they be forced to revisit most of their quesionable policies. Also, its a good thinkg to revisit blood topics here right now as most of us are new.

  Scott77
• 

  LUKEWARM

  Not sure if you noticed the excerpt from In Search of Christian Freedom, Chapter 9, published by Commentary Press. on the above link. Its a true gem!

  http://www.commentarypress.net/cpn-essays/English/4C648686-695D-48C7-ACA8-A52794ED6128_files/Search-Eng-Chap%209.2006.pdf
• 

  leavingwt

  jus to let ya know, I did read your postings. thank.

  Sounds good. I hope you found them to be informative.
• 

  Leolaia

  When the bible states to 'obstain from blood', does it indicates a whole blood product or just part of blood as blood fraction?

  The Bible does not address the situation of blood transfusions, nor the technology that breaks them down into components. The statements about blood (such as those in Acts 15) concern dietary consumption of the blood, which is shed through taking the life of a creature. The blood is reserved for atoning for taking another's life (Leviticus 17:10-11). Blood donors are not slaughtered in order to obtain their blood. No life is lost so there is nothing to atone for. On the other hand, the same law code commands that one is not to jeopardize your neighbor's life, lit. "stand idly by the blood of your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:16-18; cf. v. 18 quoted in the gospels, in Paul, and in James as the greatest commandment in the Law). One jeopardizes the life that is in the blood by letting or making someone die when that life could be saved. Jesus reiterates this principle of saving life in Mark 3:4, that "it is lawful ... to save life rather than to destroy it". Is it lawful to command people to let others die when their lives could easily be saved, or is it more lawful to save lives when it is possible to do so? The same principle is found in the Talmud, which interprets Leviticus 19:16 as requiring other commandments (such as sabbath observance) to be relaxed if they stand in the way of saving life: "How do we know that if we see someone drowning in the river, or a wild beast dragging someone off, or bandits attacking someone, we must try to save the person? Because it is said, 'You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor' " (Sanhedrin 73a).
• 

  still_in74

  THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME GOD DAM THING! - the WTS is just using this to appease the antagonists. Its pure self-serving hypocrisy!
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  What makes me sick even more is the fact the WTS keeps winning most of the law suits with few losses.

  Actually Scott they are losing more cases recently particular involving children, here in Canada and abroad.

  Its a little more difficult in the States though due to their freedom of religion amendment, which is actually the

  very same law that cults like this one hide themselves around and propagate.
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  It seems to me the WTS has inadvertently put themselves in a somewhat a legal dilemma and a popularity one as well, thats why they have changed

  their blood fraction policies again and again. They do not want the publicity of having one of their members dieing from not taking a transfusion and

  they certainly are aware of what could possibly happen legally if they were to reverse this decision as they did with organ transplants and vaccinations.

  Enter the lawyers, this one policy only makes up for the majority of their legal costs, since this has been an on going problem with the Organization fo r

  more than 60 years the legal costs have most likely been in the millions. The other aspect involving the blood issue is this supposed one and only true

  religion that they have marketed themselves on would falter badly, true religions aren't suppose to change doctrines it destroys their propped up image that

  they have self created.
• 

  Scott77

  Homerovah the Almighty , Leolaia, , LUKEWARm

  and still_in74

  I think your contributions are so informative and certainly are food for serious poundering. A few months ago, I destroyed my 'No Blook Transfusion card' to symbolize a no return back to the organisation. Many literatures were trashed, alot of them.

  Thank you everyone.

  Scott77
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  Glad to help Scott, sometimes you just have look at picture at a different angle to clearly make out what your actually seeing.