# **Proposal re: blood reform

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

Posted by Seeker [Seeker] on November 30, 1999 at 07:43:37 {JEfy6n1mcItDlUsHAETc79YAW9JMpc}:

In Reply to: *Proposal re: blood reform posted by practicus on November 30, 1999 at 04:45:39:

Are you deliberately misrepresenting the opposer position, or are you just ignorant of the facts?

The Awake! article is an excellent counterpoint to the dogmatic view

Why 'dogmatic'? Because you disagree with it?

that blood transfusion is a great boon to mankind

Well, let's see. Even with its dangers, blood transfusions have saved the lives of millions of person over the decades. Are millions of lives saved a 'boon to mankind'? I would say so. If not, what you would call it?

and an absolute necessity.

Only in certain circumstances is it absolutely necessary to sustain life, as AF pointed out. No one claims otherwise.

It is neither.

You don't want it to be either, but the facts state otherwise.

Blood transfusion is filled with danger, something more and more medical professionals are willing to contemplate.

Of course it is, which is why it shouldn't be used unless necessary. Who wants blood?? Nobody. It would be great if there was an effective blood substitute. Until there is, however, there are times when a transfusion is the only thing that will save a life, dangers or not.

It's like saying that open-heart surgeries are 'filled with danger', and thus should be avoided. Of course they should be avoided! Do exercise, eat right, don't smoke -- do whatever you need to do to avoid such an operation. However, if you need it, it's better to have one than to die. That's how doctors feel, as well as reasonable individuals.

The same with blood. There are dangers, yes. It's better to avoid the use of blood if possible, yes. But doctors will continue to use blood when necessary until there is something better. Can you use bloodless surgery in many cases? Of course, and that is the better way to go, if possible. But you are being unreasonable if you state that blood transfusions are never necessary. The death of thousands of JWs will testify otherwise.

Isn't it ironic that as more "reformers" press for abandoning the blood policy, more medical professionals are considering and using alternatives to blood transfusion, and bloodless surgery?

You really don't get it. No one is saying people should be forced to use blood. What the reformers want is for the WTS to allow JWs to exercise their own conscience in the matter. Yes, alternatives may one day render this point moot. In the meantime, why are JWs dying over something the Bible does not comment on?

Seeker

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***Proposal re: blood reform

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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