peterstride -good points. you bring up things I haven't thought about.
Yeah, I know I'm going to sound like a parrot. "Polly want a truth book?" -but to every turn there is a screw!
Ge 9:4-6 Begins to develop the sanctity of blood. It's not the blood itself that is wrong, it's what it represents. The blood represents an animal or persons life. Therefore, it is an outward expression of this appreciation, that an individual would avoid misusing it.
It is so important that if a person or even an animal were to spill the blood of an innocent person than the blood of guilty was to be paid as retribution/compensation/payment for that which was lost.
Now, naturally every drop of blood cannot possibly be drained from an animal. Talk about a rare steak. Is it juice or is it blood? Obviously the greater content is blood. It is the act or manner in which a person regards the santity of blood and recognizes God's proabition on the mis-use of blood and the reasons for it, that is the point!
So great is it's value, that his son Christ Jesus only had to pour out his blood once, for all time. It's what it means. Not it's physical components.
Further laws are elaborated upon in the book of Le. one is 17:14
This is reaffirmed and obligated by christians in the decision at Acts 15:28,29 and 21:5. It is out of respect for the life giver that only being Jehovah.
The reason why vaccines were questioned, is because the agents that make innoculation possible are/were CULTURED in blood. After the blood is seperated what you have left is the live or dead viruses that can be used to kick start a persons immune system to create antibodies against the invaders. What particibles of blood are left in the serum is miniscule. However, I don't think it can be entirley removed, much like the rare steak analogy.
I think Heb. 6:6 can be used to allude to this further. It was because Jesus' blood was poured out that made his sacrifice of any value. However, individuals come along who feel they can go on with life with complete disregard, thereby showing a complete lack of respect for that blood poured out. It kind of treats Jesus' blood as a circus affair; that it can be used without any regard for its true value, which is forgiveness for genuine repentance. So a person doesn't even have to eat or transfuse blood to show it disrespect, at least here in the case of Jesus.
why the WTBS choses which parts of blood are OK and which ones are not is speculation on my part. Here it is, If a member of Bethel (someone "important", of course) or someone of the anointed (someone "more-important", of course) the Governing Body (someone "very-important" -no assuming here, people move out of the way for these guys), really need something then it's rationalized away. We all ?benefit. But if it's you or me, you're basically stuck, for the moment, or more.
Right or wrong people die for what they believe in everyday. Right or wrong they die for a cause. I feel that that decision should be respected.