Delta,
So, I went to dictionary.com to see if you were right.
What I said most certainly does hold; the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs is a simple matter of language mechanics that I thought you either understood or would recall once it was pointed out.
The definition you provided from Dictionary.com appears to be adapted from the American Heritage Dictionary. Had you checked the synonyms at "refrain," you would have seen the following note:
Synonyms: refrain, 1 abstain, forbear
1 These verbs mean to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something: refrained from commenting; abstained from smoking; can't forbear criticizing them. (Emphasis mine)
As I have correctly stated, "abstain" negates action. The fundamental meaning is to keep or prevent oneself from doing or saying something. There is no such thing as negation of an object. It is an ungrammatical concept.
I think perhaps you are stumbling over the fact that in an "abstain from" construction the verb does not have to be stated if it is implicitly understood.
All of the following for example are accepted English uses of the word:
"At the JW memorial, everyone abstained from the Emblems"
"Although the argument was intense, the couple abstained from hateful words."
"Due to his strict diet, he abstained from dessert."
In each case, action is transferred from subject to object by a verbal construction implicit in the context. You would naturally understand that no one ate the bread nor drank the wine at the JW memorial, that the couple did not speak hateful words and that the man did not eat dessert.
This is also the case in the example you have given, "...abstain from traditional political rhetoric." The verb, "speaking" or possibly "writing" is implicit in the context.
If, as you contend, abstinence from an object is possible, you would have no trouble both in understanding the meaning of the following phrases or in restating them as simple finite negatives like I proposed that you attempt to do with blood (And you ignored)
"Abstain from shrubs."
"Abstain from pebbles."
"Abstain from crankshafts"
Because the missing verb is not readily apparent either from the context (Or more precisely, the lack thereof) or the words themselves, these phrases are pretty much nonsense.
It's for precisely this reason that an "abstain from" construction can have entirely different meanings depending upon the context in which it was spoken. Take the phrase, "abstain from alcohol" for example:
"Her obstetrician said, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol."""His dermatologist said, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol.""
The phrase ?abstain from alcohol? clearly does not negate the same action in both sentences. From the context of the former we would understand that the pregnant woman was being instructed not to drink beverages containing alcohol. We would not understand the statement to mean that she couldn?t use alcohol as a topical antiseptic or in a cosmetic. From the context of the latter, we would understand that the man with sensitive skin was being instructed not to apply alcohol directly to his skin. We would not understand the statement to mean that he couldn?t drink beverages containing it. When the ?abstain? phrase has not context it all, it becomes meaningless. What would the unadorned phrase, ?abstain from alcohol? mean without a context? It could mean not to drink beverages containing it or it could mean not to use it as a topical antiseptic, or it could mean both, or it could mean neither. Without a context it might not have any application in a medical setting at all, since the phrase ?abstain from alcohol? could just as easily mean ?Abstain from using it around an open flame.? There is no way to tell.
The point to all this is that an "abstain from" phrase cannot be divorced from the context which completes it and invoked as an independent construction as you have done with the phrase, "abstain from blood."
I'm not the best communicator in the world and perhaps I am still not explaining this clearly enough for you. What follows is an excerpt from the book, Jehovah's Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics which may make more sense:
First Century culture and the context of the Decree. In reading the command to "abstain....from blood" it is clear that something is missing: a verb. The Decree does not come right out and say, "abstain from drinking or eating blood." Yet, a verb of some kind is needed to complete the thought. For example, if I were to day "abstain from paint" it might be understood from the context of my statement that I am referring to "inhaling" paint due to its noxious and possibly lethal effect. Or, I might be referring to "touching" paint as it could ruin your new suit! Of course, I would probably phrase my statement a bit differently, perhaps no using "abstain" at all. But I am using it here to illustrate how a verb is needed to complete the thought and how this verb could and would be understood from the context of the Decree." (p. 433)
The JW's themselves in some of their more lucid moments have acknowledged the act implicit in the context several times over the years:
?Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden. Thus when mankind for the first time was permitted to eat the flesh of animals, at the time of the restatement of the procreation mandate to the Deluge survivors, blood was specifically forbidden. (Gen. 9:3, 4) In the law of Moses blood was forbidden as food, and therefore we repeatedly find it linked with fat as things not to be eaten. (Lev. 3:17; 7:22-27) And so also in the days of the apostles; it was in connection with eating meat sacrificed to idols that the eating of strangled animals and blood was forbidden.?Acts 15:20, 29.? The Watchtower September 15, 1958 p. 575 (Emphasis mine)
More recently, the JW Bible dictionary, "Insight On The Scriptures" has stated:
"The decision then made was that circumcision was not required for Gentile believers but that they should keep free from idolatry, from eating and drinking of blood, and from sexual immorality. Insight Volume II, "Paul" p. 587
As I mentioned earlier, the missing verb appears as an interpolation in a number of dynamic equivalent and paraphrased translations:
"abstain from food that has been offered to idols, from tasting blood, from the flesh of animals that have been strangled, and from sexual vice."
Moffatt "eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled; and keep yourselves from immorality."
Today's English Version"avoid what has been sacrificed to idols, tasting blood, eating the meat of what has been strangled and sexual immorality."
Phillip's Modern English"You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality."
New Living Translation"Do only what is necessary by keeping away from food sacrificed to false gods, from eating bloody meat, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual sins."
God's Word Bible ?But you should not eat anything offered to idols. You should not eat any meat that still has the blood in it or any meat of any animal that has been strangled. You must also not commit any terrible sexual sins."
Contemporary English Version"That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and from [eating the meat of animals] that have been strangled and from sexual impurity."
The Amplified Bible"You are to keep away from everything that has been given to gods. Do not eat blood or meat from animals that have been killed in ways against the Law. Keep away from sex sins"
New Life Version"You must not eat food that has been given to idols. You must not eat the meat of animals that are killed by choking. You must not taste blood. You must not commit adultery. If you keep away from these things, you will do well. Goodbye."
The Bible in Worldwide English
You have brought up a couple of non sequitors:
If you read medical journals, then you will read that the body doesnt just 'continues to function'. It is going to try to fight the intruding 'strange' cells. So its not as easy as you make it sound.
Surely you must realize that the technical viability of the procedure has nothing to do either with its scriptural propriety or the soundness of your analogy.
In my wife's congregation there is a girl with one kidney. This kidney was donated by her father when she was 12 years old. She is now in her early 20's and recently married. Although she has taken and will continue to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of her life, this kidney is still functioning as a kidney. If it were not, she would have died many years ago.
It should be apparent therefore, that there is a basic and fundamental difference between eating another human's kidney and receiving it as a transplant. There is no basis for comparing the transplant of living tissue in a manner consistent with its design purpose with the taking of a substance (e.g. A medication) that is metabolized by the body no matter how it is administered.
Remember our jewish friends? Remember the commandment Thou shall not cook the (young goat)'s meat into the mother goats milk. Our jewish friends made of that: Thou shall not mix milk with meat, and if thou ate meat thou shall wait 6 hours for it to digest before you drink milk, and if thou drinks milk thou shall wait 2 hours before thou shall eat meat. I find the step JW's make from taking blood to no bloodtransfusiin a lot smaller then the step from the commandment about the milk/meat as it is in the bible and as the jews act to it nowadays, and I have countless of examples of that kind of behavior. So its not uncommon.
First, the Jews do not use this prohibition as an excuse to justify causing the death of innocents as the JW's have done with blood. They recognize that God's requirement to preserve life contravenes Kashrut. Therefore there is no danger of incurring what the JW's refer to as "bloodguilt" by the additions they have made to the Law
Secondly, what is normative in other religions is neither here nor there when it comes to the legitimacy of the JW transfusion medicine taboo. The JW's like most other Christian religions never miss an oppurtunity to criticize both the Jews and the Oral Tradition. Therefore neither you nor they would really be justified in using it to excuse their own actions. If the JW's want to establish this doctrine using the Bible alone, (As I believe they do) then their options are really limited to only two:
1. Prove that transfusion is prohibited in the Bible2. Prove that transfusion is equivalent to something that is prohibited in the Bible