Simon said-
So what ban do they drop? You would be hard pressed to nail the WTS down to admitting they now had any ban on blood or blood products. It's been long abandoned ... they just never told their own members.
Of course, that ties in quite nicely with the subtle nuanced shift in semantics we've seen recently, where the WT has been very careful to replace the phrase, "free will" with "freedom of choice", as seen in the Awake! July 2009 article called, "Is It Wrong to Change Your Religion?"
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251
In the section called, 'Balancing Family Loyalty":
Should family conflict be avoided at all costs? The Bible teaches that children should be obedient to parents and that wives should be in subjection to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22; 6:1) However, it instructs those who love God to “obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Thus, at times, loyalty to God may result in your making a decision that is unpopular with some family members.
Although the Bible makes a clear distinction between true and false teachings, God allows each person the freedom to choose how he or she will respond. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family. Does study of the Bible lead to family breakup? No. In fact, the Bible encourages a husband and wife who practice different religions to remain together as a family.—1 Corinthians 7:12, 13.
The WT has shifted away from claiming that deciding how to worship God is a "free-will" choice, since the term has a meaning within the law that implies freedom from consequences; instead, they're claiming God allows each person the "freedom of choice" to decide what "true teachings" are, but per JW beliefs, the decision to leave JWs (the "true religion") ultimately means paying for the decision with destruction in Armageddeon, but first by being shunned by congregation and family members. So characterizing it as 'freedom of choice' allows for plausible deniability, since it DOESN'T carry the connotation of being free of consequences or ramifications (as 'free will' does).
The use of 'freedom of choice' allows the Society to claim that while members may have decided to leave the "Truth", they didn't have a reaonable expectation to avoid having to 'paying the piper' for the decision, i.e. their fellow congregants and family members also in turn enjoy the freedom to choose NOT to associate with them; the elders simply announce that the person is no longer a member of the JWs, and everyone just knows what they are expected to do.
That's where the Society can say they don't REQUIRE anyone to shun their own family members, although the failure to shun means the non-compliant person is suspectable to charges of 'brazen conduct'; if they persist they risk being DFed, as well. So every member enjoys freedom of association (which includes the right NOT to associate with others).
Further, shunning IS considered as a protected practice under freedom of worship doctrines, where courts have ruld that shunning can be practiced as part of religious worship.
It's a seemingly insurmountable barrier to overcome, esp in this day and age where religions are given a free pass on a multitude of sins. If it weren't all so dastardly and evil, I'd be tempted to call it 'brilliant'.
