MLE: Back then blood was either to be discarded after the slaughter of an animal, or used upon the altar. There was no other options for blood back then. So the average Joseph Joe Blow Israelite would be obligated to discard blood, hence pour it onto the ground, get rid of it. Even if they had the ability to utilize the blood for something practical like painting, or cosmetic purposes, this would have been a no-no under the Law.
DJ's reply: While the Law of Moses did serve its purpose until "Christ our passover [was] ... sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7), the Law was abolished upon Jesus' death, so that Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians alike are not obliged to keep the Law. But you are correct in that as long as the Law was in effect, it was unlawful for an Israelite to use blood for any reason.
My reply today: So Non Jewish Christians, Gentiles that is, are NOT obliged to keep the Law. We have an understanding on that much, interesting. I'll have to retype that for emphasis, Non Jewish Christians are NOT obliged to keep the Law. Remember the Island of Lost Souls which was remade into The Island of Dr. Moreau and the mutants would yell, "What is the law?!?!?" Good old school Sci Fi flick, better than the remake.
MLE: So if we're going to maintain the hardline with the use of blood corresponding the Law as applied to Israelites thousands of years ago, to our time today, shouldn't we be discarding blood entirely? No room at all for processing anything from it, as its to be discarded, right?
DJ's reply: Christians are not automatons, and Christians ought to be looking at God's word, not as a dead text, but as the living word of God. (Hebrews 4:12) Unlike the way things were in Bible times, there are uses to which blood can be put that do not involve blood transfusions, for blood fractions that are available to us today simply weren't available to the Israelites during the 16th century BC or during the first century AD, but it is up to the Christian to decide whether he or she can conscientiously avail himself or herself of such.
My reply today: See DJ, that's just it though. Thats it in a nutshell, JWs are automatons in some respects, and in many cases such as this subject, do not look "into" the word of God as much as they do as how you labeled it, they "look at it." Outside of Acts, there's no mention of the use of blood in the New Testament. Not to mention, who was the individual speaking on blood in that recorded account? A former Pharisee in training, the Apostle Paul, who was playing the role of a communicator between Jerusalem and the newly converted Gentile Christians who were concerned primarily over circumcision. Now, prior to Acts, what do we have to go off of in regards to the use of blood in the Scriptures? We have the Pentateuch, and in regards to what you and I are discussing, particulary Deuteronomy 12:22-28, which reads below.
22 Just as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so you may eat them; the unclean and the clean alike may eat them. 23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat. 24 You shall not eat it; you shall pour it on the earth like water. 25 You shall not eat it, that it may go well with you and your children after you, when you do what is right in the sight of the Lord. 26 Only the holy things which you have, and your vowed offereings, you shall take and go to the place which the Lord chooses. 27 And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the meat and the blood, on the altar of the Lord your God: and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the meat. 28 Observe and obey all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you and your children after you forever, when you do what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God.
Ok, so it was quite clear, that being the two issues that the average Israelite would come across regarding blood. But, you and I, we're not talking about Israelites. We're talking about Non-Jewish Christians who as you so eloquently pointed out, "are not obliged to keep the law." But alas, a problem arrises, Paul in relaying the original Governing Body's decree regarding circumcision to the Non-Jewish Christians also relayed to them that they need to abstain from things polluted by idols, from things strangled, and from blood. So although we're not obliged to keep the law again as you yourself pointed out, we can utilize blood, however Paul stated the decree from Jerusalem was to abstain from blood. Alright, so we'll follow the decree from the original GB as verbalized by Paul, we'll obstain from blood. The only problem is what did he mean when said to abstain from it? Well we have to go right back to the Pentateuch, right back to Deut 12:22-28, where it stated that blood was to be poured onto the ground, discarded. Now you might say, that's the alternative to "eating it!" Ok, so it is, but at the same time, it didn't leave any opening for us to "eat its components", either.
Put it to you this way, lets say you have a PC with multiple USB ports. Your little cousin is staying with you for a couple days as his folks are out of town, and you tell him that under no circumstances is he allowed to use your PC. You go and take a nap while he peacefully watches Power Rangers. Later he wants to listen to some music, but his MP3 player is drained. So, he decides to turn on the computer, and uses one of the USB ports to charge his MP3 player. You get up later and are upset because he disobeyed you by using the PC. He replies that he wasn't using the PC as you impressed upon him, at least not in the way that you didn't want him to use it. He didn't browse the internet, didn't look through your personal files or anything like that. He just used one of the components, one of the USB portals to charge his MP3 player. Now you can view this a couple ways, he either disobeyed you outright, or he used insight, and looked into your intent, and still obeyed what you told him.
The Mosaic Law and the way the Scriptures were sustained for our use after all these thousands of years, don't give us the luxury of having everything spelled out for us word for word when it comes to harmonizing its intent with the advancements of our modern world. So my point is, if we're going to take the hard line when it comes to the question of what we as Non-Gentile Christians are to do with blood, then we need to take the whole 9 yards. There's no room for splitting hairs and getting legalistic if we're taking the hard line. So if the Law states that blood was to be discarded and poured onto the ground, then so be it. There's no room in the Law for storing blood for scientifical purposes and straining and dividing its components to be injected, infused, or rerouted from a machine and then back into our body. No, blood was to be discarded.
To take that hard line, flies in the face of common sense and decency, not to mention the value of a life. As you stated, we're not automatons. We have common sense, and insight. When it comes to the WT's stance on blood transfusions, both common sense and insight are sorely lacking. The Law's intent regarding blood as we're discussing it, was to build appreciation for life. That's what seperates us from the animals and savages who are incapable of such. The use of blood to sustain one's life demonstrates humanity's inroads in science, and also the medical community's value of life. For the WT to maintain their hardline stance on blood, tells me they've allowed legality to overshadow their value of life, and it goes back to what you and I disagree on when it comes to the WT's use of Scripture. They look "at" Scriptures, as opposed to looking into Scripture. They're guilty of the same thing Jesus focused on in Matthew 12:1-14 when he refuted the pharisees because they got all high and mighty over His disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath. He then related to them how David and his men at the consecrated bread in the temple reserved only for the priests. HE then illustrated how it was acceptable to lift a sheep out of a pit on the Sabbath. He then healed the shriveled hand of a man in the synogogue on the Sabbath. All the pharisees could do was sit back and get mad, because Jesus illustrated and applied the Law's intent. He went beyond the simple words, and do's and dont's.
I will say this DJ, thanks for getting back to me, and I look forward to your response. I wondered whether or not my question would get lost in the mix. Thank you. You and Mr.Flipper are the kings of responding, and I appreciate both of you. Thanks again.
Not hot. 
whoa.. 
You're in Christendom's interpretation of Hell, and Lucipher states you have to spend eternity with one or the other, as they look in this picture. Who'd you pick?