All these points are very well made.
What really convinced me of the absurdity of JW’s ban on blood transfusions was the idea that you were somehow eating blood. What brought this point home to me was the illustration of a man in the hospital dying from starvation. Would a doctor give him intravenous food or a blood transfusion? The answer is simple. A blood transfusion would not nourish his body like intravenous food would. Therefore the illustration used by the society of a man told by his doctor to not drink alcohol but still he injects alcohol into his body being the same as Christians told not to eat blood but injecting it into their bodies is unfair….apples and oranges. Blood, unless eaten through the mouth or digestive system, is not used by the body for nourishment. Now, the society counters this argument by saying the blood is used by the body to carry the foods nourishing components to the rest of the body. Still not the same, it is not in itself being used for food, it is being used to transport the food among many other things and many other functions.
The other point that really makes sense to me is the whole view of blood from God’s standpoint. Blood is symbolic of life. Life is sacred to God and therefore blood is sacred to God because it represents life. What the WTBTS does is place the importance of the symbol ABOVE the importance of that which it symbolizes. This simply does not make sense. I come's down to this, which I more sacred to God your life or a symbol of your life (blood)?
Leolaia, I really appreciate your point. I did not realize how God allowed his own rules to be bent, even broken, when the loss of life was on the line.