A JW explains Blood Fractions

by OrphanCrow 50 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  It is not surprising that some JWs, the true believers who need a "logical" explanation for something that is so illogical, come up with convoluted reasoning to make the WT seem reasonable.

  Yes. It seems to be fairly common.
  

  In this particular case, the logical corollary is that it would be okay to eat blood so long as it has been cooked first

  In other words, if as the author argues, separating blood beyond the so called, "primary components" is a destructive process rendering it no longer, "blood," then the same could be said with even greater force about cooking it, given the fact that it is far more destructive.

  We both know that's not the case at all. Cooked or uncooked, it's never okay for a JW to eat blood and the JW parent organization does not endorse such an obviously double-edged sword.
  
  
• 

  possum

  Orphan Crow. Thanks for the update great info will get up to speed.
• 

  Finkelstein

  The core interpretative mistake by the WTS is that the no blood use or consumption by the ancient Hebrews was a dietary law as to respect the life giving attributes and sanctity of blood to all living things offered by god.

  As in the use of blood transfusions today there is no dietary consumption, it is used toward the respect of life itself in medical usage, added that the blood did not come from a dead human being as in the original conception and understanding
  
• 

  JakeM2012

  So, you can take blood as a witness and say that it was only a blood fraction and remain in good standing.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  You are welcome, Possum. It is difficult to stay on top of where blood research is actually at.

  Finkelstein: ...added that the blood did not come from a dead human being as in the original conception and understanding

  Actually, that is a wee bit incorrect, Finklestein. The "original conception and understanding" had nothing at all to do with human blood. The directive from "Yahweh"/Moses/priests concerned animal blood. A dead animal. Not a dead human. Or live human, for that matter.

  It was not human blood that was either to be "put on the altar" or "poured upon the ground". It was animal blood that was used for sacrificial rites. Like cow's blood. Which, according to that old scriptural directive, was to be poured on the ground. Not collected and processed into blood for "god's chosen people".

  Jake: So, you can take blood as a witness and say that it was only a blood fraction and remain in good standing.

  Uh...no. And yes. It depends.

  It depends on whether the WTS says you can or not. And, only WT "approved" fractions allowed.

  The WT controls which blood fractions the JW population can use and when. "Minor blood fractions". Another WT bloodspeak phrase. Only the WT calls fractionated blood components "fractions" and only they call those components "minor".

  Those "minor blood fractions" are what some psychologists would term a "small favor". It is one of the techniques that a captor will use on their victims to get them to be compliant and to "turn" them. Make them loyal to their captor. This has happened in hostage taking situations. A prisoner is deprived on something basic and essential. And then, the captor "gifts" a tiny amount of what is being held back. This cements an emotional contract between the prisoner and the captor - the prisoner is grateful for small favors and in turn, becomes loyal to the one who captured them.
• 

  rebel8

  Logically, as blood is broken down, at some point the components logically cease to be blood. If this logic was not correct then EVERY molecule which had ever been part of blood would still be considered blood and could not be ingested to eternity. Such a view would be unreasonable and completely illogical.

  No, it's not unreasonable or illogical. Blood products were directly derived from blood, not metabolized or decomposed and absorbed into something else that was then consumed.

  Also, some of these products have a lower safety rating...so which is it? Either you are taking credit for your 100% abstinence doctrine resulting in protection from HIV, or you're not.
  
  

  We can illustrate this with someone who used blood products to fertilize their fruit trees. Now, would it be hypocritical to buy and eat the fruit just because it contains some of the molecules from the blood? That would be unreasonable and completely illogical

  Seriously, what the actual....

  They DID ban use of blood-based garden fertilizers and eating the produce grown with it! This activity fell into the category of storing and then using blood, which was a direct violation of doctrine.
  
• 

  konceptual99

  I remember a big thing going round the local congregations back in the 80s where we were told not to buy mushrooms because the fertiliser contained a blood by-product.

  To be fair, in the late 70s, early 80s when I was growing up the blood doctrine made sense because it was pretty black and white. As medical technology advanced that's where the grey areas came in and all this hand wringing about what is acceptable, what isn't acceptable etc started.

  It then got exacerbated by things like cell salvage, not least as you had congregations (Chichester local to me for example) buying machines for the local hospital and then some Witnesses saying it would be against their conscience to use one.

  You had congregation elders essentially determining what would be right or wrong and therefore steering people to a choice that suited an increasingly watered down front to the medical profession. It's no wonder that most dubs just tick all the boxes and reason that if they can't be DF'ed for it then it's OK. Zero critical thinking.
• 

  TheWonderofYou

  The above mentioned link could not function without the last letter "L" in "html"

  http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-who-almost-died-after-refusing-blood-transfusion-hits-out-at-harmful-jehovahs-witness-teachings-35756799.html
  
• 

  EverApostate

  Even if Blood fractions are acceptable through this self righteous manipulation, where do they get the blood fractions from ? From some "worldly" people who donated their blood. Isn't it Unrighteous to have a policy of "NOT to donate blood" but accept components.
• 

  problemaddict 2

  OC and TD you guys are my favorites when it comes to the blood issue......one very close to my heart as people close to me have been directly affected, and it was the first brick to fall from the wall in my mind when I was waking up.

  So they follow the well known *moral* principle described as abiding by the "spirit of the Law" which is universally recognized as being logical.
  

  Anyone else read this and say to themselves.....what!? I also like that Grays anatomy (late 1800's to early 1900's) is used, considering at the time they would not really be able to determine what fractions were possible beyond what was visible. So he mentions 4 "components", but they are still only fractions of whole blood. If I eat half a pie, the 1/2 of the pie left is still a fraction of the pie. So the question is when does something go from "blood" to fraction. Who determines when this transformation takes place?

  I still have the luxury of speaking with many JW's that i am friends with, and even had a long conversation over weeks and e mails with a circuit overseer that was a friend of the family. His apologetic's came down to these 3 things when faced with the raw hypocrisy of the current doctrine.

  1) People aren't really disfellowshipped for this anymore. That isn't true, but it isn't really a lie either. It could be de-classified as a light sin at this point. No doubt if you are brazen about it, they may still DF you. Still, this does not seem to be something that happens, and JW's DO take blood many times when their privacy is properly upheld by the hospital.

  2) Blood is "bad medicine". This one always just kills me. I explain opiates are not ideal either, but if you are on one, its probably because the alternative is worse. When they tout bloodless medicine, I simply ask them what the millions of their brethren in third world countries are supposed to do with limited resources. We usually can't even get to the biblical reasons why it should be a conscience matter, because they seem hung up on the idea that blood makes you sick. The "yuck" factor if you will. I hear this from YOUNG JW's quite a bit. Keeping them from going to college seems to be working out.

  3) If JW's were wrong about blood, that would make us blood guilty. However the growth continues to accelerate (followed by a graph of the years blood policy was introduced, and the growth experienced within 5 years of the announcement). **facepalm**