# ***Vacillating

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Tom [Zachary] on November 09, 1999 at 18:03:10 {4Hfg918T5gMW5QGx.y.2PaEpA0ijdc}:

In Reply to: **Vacillating posted by Noggin on November 09, 1999 at 11:57:16:

Hi Noggin,

You asked

Sleight of hand, deceit. Why?? What would be the motive to "trick" someone about this?

"Semantic legerdemain" does not necessarily require some base ulterior motive. People use it to fool themselves at least as often as it is used to fool others. I know from experience that facing the inherent problems with the blood issue can be a very bitter pill to swallow so on that basis alone the average JW has a huge emotional need to preserve their current beliefs.

Problem is, the physical and moral gap between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood is difficult to bridge. Every attempt I have seen anyone make to bridge this gap has relied at some point on equivocation.

Take the phrase "Taking blood into one's system" which is ubiquitous in the Society's literature. Does the use of this phrase establish anything in the way of a physical or moral equality between the acts of consumption and transfusion, or does it merely describe similarity by virtue of the fact that it is not a very specific term?

What do you think? Do you believe that marital sex and adultery are equally wrong because they both can be described by the general term "Sex?" Do you believe that murder and capital punishment are equally wrong because they can both be described by the general term "Killing?" Can we establish moral equality between two acts simply by the words we use to describe them or should we be obligated instead to show that the same moral principles are violated in each instance?

Tom

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ****Vacillating

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]