Based upon my conversations with various “Neo-Apologists” during the last year, I believe their argument differs from that of Rolf Furuli in three main ways.
(1) Furuli was willing to recognize that action and matter are distinguishable when it comes to the objects listed in the Decree. (e.g. The abstention from things sacrificed to idols was about the act of idolatry, not about “things” in and of themselves.) However the acknowledgement of this fact necessitates an explanation as to why a claim of equality between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood is not simply equivocation. In other words, the two must be linked by moral equality of action, not simply the fact that they are both uses of blood. The Neo-Apologists attempt to avoid this discussion altogether by arguing that the real issue revolves around blood as a substance. Besides creating a semantic inconsistency within the Decree which Furuli apparently wished to avoid, it doesn’t really accomplish anything as the equivocation ends up incorporated in their argument as a core assumption anyway.
(2) Furuli stated that the principles behind the prohibitions regarding blood were the same as those behind the requirements to preserve life and avoid causing the death of innocents, namely that “Life belongs to God” and “God is the source of life.” However while these principles may support a prohibition against using blood for things it was not designed to do, a prohibition against the use of blood as blood not only does not follow from these principles, it actually runs counter to them. The Neo-Apologists attempt to avoid this contradiction by hypothesizing the principle behind the Law’s prohibitions regarding blood as “Blood is sacred and has been withheld from man’s prerogative.” Not only does this generalize well beyond what they seem willing and able to defend, it pits their hypothesis directly against explicit biblical requirements.
(3) Furuli argued for a “prohibition” applicable both to all blood and all uses of blood not specifically sanctioned by God. This would have included both allogenic and autologous transfusion. However when the logical viability of this hypothesis was challenged, he appeared somewhat confused and offered no more substantive a response than dismissive indignation. The Neo-Apologists have modified the “prohibition” somewhat by adding the proviso, “or by natural consequence.” In this way “natural” functions of blood are exempted from the “prohibition” and “natural” processes (e.g. The transfer of immunoglobulins between mother and fetus) may also be “mimicked” outside the body. This makes it almost impossible to argue without contradiction against autologous transfusion and this is about the only positive thing I can say about their approach.
Fe203Girl --
Although the "Neo-Apologists" tend to be liberal minded in my opinion, they defend the current state of the blood policy tooth & nail. Some of them have gone to great lengths to try and come up with more rational explantions for the use of certain blood components than that offered by the JW parent organizations.