@Leeca, Djeggnog replied to your comment by saying, "I really don't know how to answer your question, except to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not known as the religion that doesn't accept blood transfusions. This is your view."
I just wanted to let you know that I thought they were known for that too (and obviously we are not alone in that view), and although djeggnog is technically correct in one sense (that it is your view as it is others'), he is incorrect in another sense (to say they are not known as the religion that doesn't accept blood transfusions). How can I say that with any authority? Because their own organization makes it known, and if an organization 'makes it known' that they don't accept blood transfusions, well then by golly, they are known for it. :) What djeggnog has done in his response(s) to you (as if you didn't already know) is, he has presented a half-truth or partial-truth as if it were a whole-truth or fact, which isn't too difficult to discern. When people use that approach (as djeggnog has done quite effectively) they get to 'choose' the sense they feel comfortable addressing while avoiding the sense they wish to avoid (for whatever reason--I'm not here to accuse). :) I often times see this happening amongst children, where they really do know the main point of an issue is correct and valid, but for different reasons they still choose to argue.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm
“Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe?”
….
“WHAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BELIEVE”
….
“Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws”
“Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe?”
….
“WHAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BELIEVE”
….
“Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws”