Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  TD

  The JW's emphatically condemned the use of gamma globulin (IgG) in 1954 (Awake! January 8, 1954 p. 25)

  Four years later, in 1958 they changed their interpretation and allowed it on the basis that it didn't nourish the body as food. (The Watchtower September 15, 1958 p. 575 --Gamma globulin is the basis for post-exposure vaccines and serums.)

  Three years later, in 1961, they changed their mind again and said that any and all fractions derived from blood were forbidden (The Watchtower September 15, 1961 pp. 558,559)

  Three years later, in 1964, they changed their mind again. IgG was now allowed, but under a different rationale than it had been allowed in 1958 (The Watchtower November 15, 1964 p. 682)

  The position with regard to IgG has remained pretty much the same ever since and few JW's even think twice about accepting it today.

  ----------
  

  With the foregoing in mind:
  

  What would have been the proper course for the parent of a child with ITP, Kawasaki's syndrome, neonatal immunological deficiency syndrome, etc. during one of the windows where IgG it was forbidden?

  Similarly, what would be the proper course for the parent of a child with an atypical bleeding disorder today?
• 

  TD

  Over the years, the JWs have offered four separate rationales for the allowance of various blood components
  
  (1) In September of 1958 IgG preparations such as the diphtheria antitoxin were allowed on the basis that these "do not nourish the body." However since no component of blood actually nourishes the body, this rationale if taken to its logical conclusion would have brought the whole doctrine crashing down.
  
  (2) In June of 1982, the 1958 rationale for the allowance of fractions was replaced. The JW's attempted to divide blood into "major" and "minor" components, with the major ones forbidden and the minor ones allowed. However the policy the JW's enforced did not consistently follow this rationale. The only basis the JW's ever offered for the major/minor division was raw percentage of blood volume for each respective component. Platelets which comprises roughly 2/10ths of 1 percent of your blood volume were forbidden while albumin which comprises slightly more than 10 times as much (2.2%) was allowed. Not one of the components of plasma was forbidden yet plasma as such (these components suspended in water) were forbidden.
  
  (3) In June of 1990 the 1982 rationale was replaced. Blood components were now divided on the basis of transference across the placental barrier during pregnancy. The same divisions remained. This (IMHO) was one of their better and more honest attempts at interpretation as it put God back into the equation via an appeal to natural consequence. The idea was that God would not violate his own "laws" via creation. However this rationale was not technically viable either.
  
  In 1992 a female lab tech who had donated a blood specimen for analysis was found to have "Y" DNA circulating in her blood stream. Researchers were puzzled until it was disclosed that she was 6 weeks pregnant. The source of the "Y" DNA was her unborn son. Cells in the blood of the fetus including fetal nucleated red blood cells, were crossing the placental barrier. Other studies detected fetal erythroblasts, trophoblasts, granulocytes and lymphocytes in the maternal blood. Since then it has been demonstrated that a woman can still have fetal blood cells in her blood stream more than 30 years after her last pregnancy.
  
  (4) In June of 2000, the 1990 rationale for the allowance of some blood components was replaced. Blood components are now classified as either "primary" or "secondary." This enlarged the scope of permitted preparations procedures to any and all "fractions" or a "primary" component.

  While I would agree that easing the restriction was a positive development, this is still a human interpretation subject to error, future revisions and lacking anything even remotely resembling a biblical basis.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  What would have been the proper course for the parent of a child

  In every case, to save the life of one’s child —except taking the life of another human to save one’s child would be a horrible predicament. In the US a child is the ward of the State and he is getting blood if that is the only way or in the child’s best interest so a parent doesn’t have to worry about it —which Marvin Shilmer argued is disingenuous.
  
  

  this is still a human interpretation subject to error,

  What blood fractions are not blood is subject to error as you have shown. But you have not shown that BT teaching is.
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  TD,

  Very interesting, informative and respected commentary. I don’t want to give you the impression that I don’t appreciate your commentary or that I don’t highly respect you.

  Kind regards,

  FM
• 

  BluesBrother

  A while back, there was a regional meeting for all the area HLC members at the hall. On Saturday night the chairman did a meeting for the congregation.

  Most of it was as expected with “experiences” but I will not forget that he drew that chart on the blackboard with allowed fractions below the line. With great gravitas he said “ The Governing Body” have decided that this we may take if you wish”

  So that’s it , the GB decided, not God or Jesus . They are following what Jesus called “commands of men”…
• 

  Fisherman

  The Governing Body”have decided that this we may take if you wish”

  The statement alludes to the Decree in Acts which implies that the fiat is not only from Rome (“we ourselves”) but from God ( “the Holy Spirit”). If that is a myth, the collapse of the house will be catastrophic with no protection from God which the builders claim it is founded on.
  
  
• 

  TD

  Fisherman,

  With respect, I don't believe you have bridged the gap between the eating of blood (What the Bible forbids) and the transfusion of blood (What that prohibition is interpreted by JW's to mean in the context of modern medicine.)

  You seem to be relying on your own gut feeling and that's not enough. Similarity is not moral equivalence.

  There is a similarity between marital sex and adultery, but the two are not morally equivalent acts. Attempting to imply equivalency by lumping them both under the broader category of sex would be the fallacy of equivocation.

  There is a similarity between burning a pinch of incense to a pagan god and burning a pinch of incense because you like the ambience, but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

  There is a similarity between sipping wine during a JW memorial and sipping wine after you get home. (Even if it is poured from the exact same bottle) but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

  Even strictly within the scope of the Decree, there is a similarity between the eating of an idol sacrifice in a pagan temple and the eating of an idol sacrifice when it is sold to the public, but the two are not morally equivalent acts.

  Moral equivalency is not established by similarity. It is established via a logical construct.

  Try a simple thought experiment. Why does the prohibition against murder, expressed poetically as, "shedding man's blood" apply to poisoning, electrocution and other forms of murder where no blood is shed? How would you construct a watertight argument that would stand up to criticism?
  

  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  TD

  I must confess that I enjoy your kind and elegant style.

  Moral equivalency is not established by similarity. It is established via a logical construct.

  
  

  The Bible distinguishes shedding blood with murder. 1 Ch 22:7,8

  
  

  The Bible distinguishes lawful sex with adultery.

  
  

  The Bible distinguishes burning incense to gods and as ritual prayer to Jehovah.

  
  

  The Bible distinguishes the act of drinking wine or eating from a ritual.

  
  

  The Bible does not distinguish eating blood from ingesting a gallon of it via IV.
• 

  TD

  Interesting

  I illustrate the fallacy of assuming moral equivalency from superficial similarity using biblical examples. (no less...)
  

  And although on one hand, you agree with the examples, you proceed in the very next breath to frame an argument of similarity (?)

  If you're using the word, "ingestion" in the medical sense, you're misusing it, as it is specific to the alimentary canal. If you're using the word in the more generic, everyday sense, you're equivocating, which is a logical fallacy.
• 

  Fisherman

  to frame an argument of similarity (?)

  
  

  Unlike a kidney transplant or a metal buttress for a broken bone, BT blood is absorbed by the body thereby ingesting it.

  
  

  My examples are not highlighting relationships but pointing out that when an act such as killing is defined as murder in the Bible and prohibited, the Bible also clearly defines when killing is not prohibited and allowed. Therefore, although there is a difference between eating blood and using blood for medical reasons, the Bible does not sanction any medical use of blood or other use of blood except for ritual, so the Decree ( according to the latest JW commentary ) not only refers to eating blood but also involves medical use in a blood transfusion.

  
  (All of the transfused blood in a BT might not be absorbed right away but similar to the y chromosomes you mentioned that showed up in the blood stream of the mother (assumed true) any trace blood of the fetus will be absorbed or ingested in time by the mother with no evidence of y chromosomes.)