Many times I have asked my JW relatives questions that they've been unable to answer with anything other than, "good question, I'll get back to you on that." For some reason, they never actually do get back to me on them. So, now here's the opportunity for the Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters on this forum to either answer some of these questions or concede that they have no answer. If anyone can think of additional questions of this nature, please feel free to add them to this thread.
1. Why are blood transfusions forbidden but organ transplants are "a matter of conscience," thereby allowing one to receive an organ transplant without fearing judicial committee penalties? My family doctor advises that it is impossible to excise all blood from a donor organ. Accordingly, the recipient of a donor organ will inevitably receive at least some of the donor's blood, directly into the blood stream, in a manner equivalent in nature to that of an actual blood transfusion. Based on my understanding of the the scriptures interpreted by the Jehovah's Witnesses as supporting their ban on blood transfusions, there is no "de minimis" exception set forth therein that would allow blood transfusions if the quantity of blood transfused was small or even very small. Can anyone explain this logical inconsistency?
2. Smoking is forbidden based on scripture admonishing us to avoid "defiling" our bodies. Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses permit their members to consume as much saturated fats and other foods known to be responsible for heart disease as they choose, while banning smoking? Heart disease is one of the leading killers in our country, and medical research indicates a strong correlation between a diet high in saturated fats and heart disease. Is this a case of discrimination by the governing body against only some practices that "defile" the body, while allowing other practices that "defile" the body but are more politically correct within the organization? I see no logical basis to ban one and not the other.
I have more questions of this nature, but this is a good start. OK, Jehovah's Witnesses and their advocates, here's your chance to answer the questions I'm still waiting for your peers to "get back to me" on.