Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Ingledsva]

Yeah, but what does your situation and receiving blood have to do with Jehovah's Witnesses choice over their own bodies? You being here today, has nothing to do with whether they want to have them? They didn't interfere with your rights, you got them and we are not criticizing you! But your medical crisis and having blood, shouldn't have anything to do with their choices

My story is the why FOR Blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses can abstain if they wish to.

The problem here is that you are twisting another religions' Law, - and claiming YOU are correct - and they are wrong.

*

 

[psychoslice]

Its odd that JW's don't believe in blood transfusions when they eat red meat, maybe cooked but its still blood, and what about vaccines, many have blood within them. I myself was once a Seventh Day Adventist, we were mostly vegetarian, for us the bible meant not to eat blood, nothing to do with blood transfusions. I believe if there is a chance of not having a blood transfusion, then that is good, but many times one needs blood in emergency situations, especially after loosing half or more of your blood supply, what sort of god would condemn that ?.

 

[Ingledsva]

You didn't read what I said, I said they do have the right, but not the right to refuse a blood transfusion to their children.

I agree.

My stepfather was angry at women because his mother withheld blood from his brother whom was in an accident. His brother was brain damaged from this. Blood carries oxygen to the brain.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

"Lasting statute for your generations" Yes, a lasting statute for their generations, the Israelites! Levitcus is directed to them, not us, and it lasted in all the days of the Israelites

The whole Tanakh and it's Laws are for the Jews and no one else.

*

 

[Jenny Collins]

I agree.

My stepfather was angry at women because his mother withheld blood from his brother whom was in an accident. His brother was brain damaged from this. Blood carries oxygen to the brain.

*

Your stepfather has misplaced anger if he blames all women for the actions of his mother! I would not give such a man any credence! As far as you thinking that JWs should let their kids have blood, I have been thoroughly addressed that here! If they think blood is wrong, why would they have different standards for their children? If it is against God's law, then you would not question it at all! You would agree that God has the right to set the standards! So it comes down to subjective interpretation! So you are letting YOUR interpretation guide your views of what we should do with our opinion! I have given strong answers to your claims that blood transfusions are okay! I have shown the Bible's views! If you believe in the Bible and God, then you yourself would admit that even if a child's life were at risk, you must do as God says! Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because "God said so"! Do you find fault with that? JWs of course do not "sacrifice" their kids, the common denominator is that if a life is on the line, even their child's, they must do what God says! So unless you disbelieve the Bible, you would have to admit that there are times that this must be done! Please answer this: Do you believe the Bible? Yes or no!

 

[Jenny Collins]

W

My story is the why FOR Blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses can abstain if they wish to.

The problem here is that you are twisting another religions' Law, - and claiming YOU are correct - and they are wrong.

*

We are in no way twisting the words of the Bible as we have clearly explained!

 

[Jenny Collins]

The whole Tanakh and it's Laws are for the Jews and no one else.

*

The Bible is for everyone, Old Testament and New Testament! We do not have to follow the Law that is outlined in the Old Testament, but we need to read the Old Testament to understand God, and help to understand the New Testament! And the stand on blood is based on the New Testament! "Abstain from blood" is found in the book of Acts

 

[Jenny Collins]

I find replies like this one quite funny.

You get your God ideas from the JEWISH Tanakh, - such as the BLOOD info, - even claiming Jesus is the JEWISH Messiah, - and then twist "SOME' Tanakh texts, and claim it is OK to do so - because you aren't Jewish. LOL!

Either the texts are correct, - or they aren't. You can't say some are, and others aren't, - in your supposedly - FROM GOD, - TO HIS SPECIAL CHOSEN PEOPLE, - Tanakh!

Read whole texts in context.

"The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." (Acts 15:22-29) ...

... To make matters even more perplexing, Paul later writes to both the Romans and to the Corinthians that the first prohibition is not really all that binding or essential. He literally tells the Christians in those churches that eating meat sacrificed to idols is acceptable because idols are not real gods. If the prohibition in the Acts 15 letter was a genuine prophecy regarding the essentials of salvation, how could Paul simply contradict that commandment by instructing both Rome and Corinth that they must allow their members to eat meat sacrificed to idols because it is in fact just a Christian liberty? By definition, a liberty is not an "essential". ...

... One Prohibition, Not Four

But these "essential abstainances " were not references to fragments of the Mosaic Law at all. This short list of things to avoid were the very essentials that divided believing Gentile from unbelieving Gentile. They divided Christian from idolater.

Each of these four "essential" things to avoid were not four things, but one. They were meant to be read as "never again worship idols by eating with the idolaters in the sacrificial meals, drinking the cup of blood at the idol sacrifice ceremonies, do not ceremoniously eat the flesh of animals strangled during the worship of idols, and abstain from ritual acts of fornication with temple prostitutes. ..."

Article: These Essentials: Abstain from Idols, Blood, Strangled Meat, Sex--Understanding the Prohibitions of Acts 15 - The Faithful Word.org

*

See my reply # 579.

*

Old Testament Law forbid Hebrews from eating blood! New Testament told Christians not to eat blood! We do not say no to transfusions because of the Mosaic Law, but because the same command is also given to Christians! The Mosaic Law has lots of commands, not to mix fabrics, or eat shellfish! Christians can do those things! The Mosiac Law says not to eat blood! We have to abstain from blood not because the Mosaic Law said so, but because it was reiterated for Christians! Look at it this was: Say you live in a country that is under a certain regime and it has laws! Another takes over! You are not under the law of the old government but the new government may implement some of the same prohibitions!

 

[dianaiad]

You didn't read what I said, I said they do have the right, but not the right to refuse a blood transfusion to their children.

I did. I was addressing the 'also convincing others also can be harmful, if what they are doing is wrong then it is wrong." part. Attached as it was to the first part of the sentence, it concerned me.

As to whether they have the 'right' to refuse blood transfusions for their children....that is a very sticky problem. I would, for instance, hate to have the state step in and tell me what I had to teach my kids, or how to care for them. As it happens, society as it stands would have very little problem with the way I deal with my children and modern medical science, but....what if it did?

 

[Jenny Collins]

You didn't read what I said, I said they do have the right, but not the right to refuse a blood transfusion to their children.

Sometimes courts take away our rights and transfuse the kid anyway! If the court doesn't take away that right, then by definition we do have the right! And if we are correct that blood is against God's laws, then we are not wrong to forbid them in our child! You are not God! God is God, so it is what he says that matters, not what YOU think! And so you know, many children do NOT want to have a blood transfusion! when I was an 11year old which is the age that I began learning about the Bible, if I were hospitilized, if someone tried to force a transfusion on me, I would feel violated to the point that it would be comparable to rape! That is how strong a little girl I was, and how sure of my beliefs! Stood up to my mom too, who tried to verbally abuse me out of my beliefs! What you are seeing right now, is what you get with me! Age 11 Jenny: "I will think and decide for myself" Age 50 Jenny: "I will think and decide for myself"

 

[Jenny Collins]

I did. I was addressing the 'also convincing others also can be harmful, if what they are doing is wrong then it is wrong." part. Attached as it was to the first part of the sentence, it concerned me.

As to whether they have the 'right' to refuse blood transfusions for their children....that is a very sticky problem. I would, for instance, hate to have the state step in and tell me what I had to teach my kids, or how to care for them. As it happens, society as it stands would have very little problem with the way I deal with my children and modern medical science, but....what if it did?

The government may also decide to tell people that they have to give kids certain vaccinations and maybe the parents don't think they are safe! A lot of times the courts interfere in the kind of care we seek for our kids, when alternatives are available, or the courts go along with the judgment of the doctor! The judge thinks "Who am I to second guess him! He is the doc" So he rubber stamps him and the parents are deprived of any choices

 

[psychoslice]

I did. I was addressing the 'also convincing others also can be harmful, if what they are doing is wrong then it is wrong." part. Attached as it was to the first part of the sentence, it concerned me.

As to whether they have the 'right' to refuse blood transfusions for their children....that is a very sticky problem. I would, for instance, hate to have the state step in and tell me what I had to teach my kids, or how to care for them. As it happens, society as it stands would have very little problem with the way I deal with my children and modern medical science, but....what if it did?

A lot of people abuse their children, that doesn't mean they have the right to do so.

 

[psychoslice]

Sometimes courts take away our rights and transfuse the kid anyway! If the court doesn't take away that right, then by definition we do have the right! And if we are correct that blood is against God's laws, then we are not wrong to forbid them in our child! You are not God! God is God, so it is what he says that matters, not what YOU think! And so you know, many children do NOT want to have a blood transfusion! when I was an 11year old which is the age that I began learning about the Bible, if I were hospitilized, if someone tried to force a transfusion on me, I would feel violated to the point that it would be comparable to rape! That is how strong a little girl I was, and how sure of my beliefs! Stood up to my mom too, who tried to verbally abuse me out of my beliefs! What you are seeing right now, is what you get with me! Age 11 Jenny: "I will think and decide for myself" Age 50 Jenny: "I will think and decide for myself"

No, you do not have the right to gamble your children's life all because you believe a god told you so, you do not own your children.

 

[Ingledsva]

Your stepfather has misplaced anger if he blames all women for the actions of his mother! I would not give such a man any credence!

Of course he has misplaced his anger, - however, - I was giving the reason for that anger - in relation to this subject. His brother was brain damaged because his mother would not allow blood transfusions.

As far as you thinking that JWs should let their kids have blood, I have been thoroughly addressed that here! If they think blood is wrong, why would they have different standards for their children?

You have not trumped science in your posts. Authorities step in all the time for the benefit of children. I believe they should do so in this case - until the child is old enough to choose for themselves.

If it is against God's law, then you would not question it at all! You would agree that God has the right to set the standards!

There is no proof the God of the Bible is real, or God. It is written by Bronze/Iron Age people - whom did not have modern science.

So it comes down to subjective interpretation! So you are letting YOUR interpretation guide your views of what we should do with our opinion!

It is not my interpretation. The JEWS whose Tanakh it is - say YOU are wrong in your interpretation.

Also, obviously, there are two sides in the medical/scientific debate on blood transfusions, - with the majority of the authorities being on the side of giving transfusions.

I have given strong answers to your claims that blood transfusions are okay! I have shown the Bible's views!

No you haven't. You have shown a later religious groups ideas about another religion's texts. THEY don't agree with you.

If you believe in the Bible and God, then you yourself would admit that even if a child's life were at risk, you must do as God says!

Absolutely NOT! The treatment and murder of children for supposed adult sins, is exactly why I know the God of the Bible IS NOT GOD.

Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because "God said so"! Do you find fault with that? JWs of course do not "sacrifice" their kids, the common denominator is that if a life is on the line, even their child's, they must do what God says! So unless you disbelieve the Bible, you would have to admit that there are times that this must be done!

I believe the Isaac story is a teaching story showing the new teaching to NO LONGER offer the First Born as a Sacrifice to YHVH. An animal is used as a substitute. And YES the Hebrew did have child sacrifice.

Please answer this: Do you believe the Bible? Yes or no!

No. The God of the Bible allows the things evil MEN want to do, - thus written by men - not God. The God of the Bible commits murder of the innocent.

*

 

[Jenny Collins]

See my reply # 579.

*

No they don't have the right to abuse their kids!

A lot of people abuse their children, that doesn't mean they have the right to do so.

No they don't have the right to abuse their kids! What does that have to do with not giving their kids transfusions! Most transfusions are not needed! Even when a doctor may claim they are, they may not help and may harm! And if life is indeed at risk, if the kid dies, if God says you can't do something, you can't do it! Do you believe in the Bible? It says: "Abstain from blood" Even if a child's life is on the line, you have to do what God tells you! He gave the life in the first place, and Abraham was going to go as far as to sacrifice Isaac to be obedient! God himself, let his own son be sacrificed! Remember Jesus giving up his life? But even so, JWs do not "sacrifice" their kids, they just do not choose transfusions for them! There are very few JW kids who die from not having transfusions! Even if a doctor says the kid died for that reason, maybe the kid would have died anyway, or maybe the doctor made a mistake! It is very hard to say how the outcome would have turned out with or without a transfusion in some cases! Courts step in and sometimes take away the parent's rights to refuse, in which case you can't say the parent did anything wrong, as they were robbed of a choice! If they were given the right and refused the kid blood, then they did what was within their legal rights! And kids often do NOT want the transfusion! If I was given one as a child, I would have been pretty angry!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Of course he has misplaced his anger, - however, - I was giving the reason for that anger - in relation to this subject. His brother was brain damaged because his mother would not allow blood transfusions.



You have not trumped science in your posts. Authorities step in all the time for the benefit of children. I believe they should do so in this case - until the child is old enough to choose for themselves.



There is no proof the God of the Bible is real, or God. It is written by Bronze/Iron Age people - whom did not have modern science.



It is not my interpretation. The JEWS whose Tanakh it is - say YOU are wrong in your interpretation.

Also, obviously, there are two sides in the medical/scientific debate on blood transfusions, - with the majority of the authorities being on the side of giving transfusions.



No you haven't. You have shown a later religious groups ideas about another religion's texts. THEY don't agree with you.



Absolutely NOT! The treatment and murder of children for supposed adult sins, is exactly why I know the God of the Bible IS NOT GOD.



I believe the Isaac story is a teaching story showing the new teaching to NO LONGER offer the First Born as a Sacrifice to YHVH. An animal is used as a substitute. And YES the Hebrew did have child sacrifice.



No. The God of the Bible allows the things evil MEN want to do, - thus written by men - not God. The God of the Bible commits murder of the innocent.

*

It sounds like your prejudice about this issue stems from the way your step father treated you and your mother! You are transferring his misplaced anger onto us! He may even be wrong about the kid getting brain damage from the mom not giving the transfusion! You are going by the way your step father interpreted the situation, and he may have even been wrong about the reasons!

 

[Jenny Collins]

A

Of course he has misplaced his anger, - however, - I was giving the reason for that anger - in relation to this subject. His brother was brain damaged because his mother would not allow blood transfusions.



You have not trumped science in your posts. Authorities step in all the time for the benefit of children. I believe they should do so in this case - until the child is old enough to choose for themselves.



There is no proof the God of the Bible is real, or God. It is written by Bronze/Iron Age people - whom did not have modern science.



It is not my interpretation. The JEWS whose Tanakh it is - say YOU are wrong in your interpretation.

Also, obviously, there are two sides in the medical/scientific debate on blood transfusions, - with the majority of the authorities being on the side of giving transfusions.



No you haven't. You have shown a later religious groups ideas about another religion's texts. THEY don't agree with you.



Absolutely NOT! The treatment and murder of children for supposed adult sins, is exactly why I know the God of the Bible IS NOT GOD.



I believe the Isaac story is a teaching story showing the new teaching to NO LONGER offer the First Born as a Sacrifice to YHVH. An animal is used as a substitute. And YES the Hebrew did have child sacrifice.



No. The God of the Bible allows the things evil MEN want to do, - thus written by men - not God. The God of the Bible commits murder of the innocent.

*

Actually, you haven't "trumped science" although I am not sure exactly what that means! You are speaking without the benefit of considering the science of it! I actually have shared a link here about the dangers of blood, maybe you missed it, and it was in a newspaper, not a JW publication! Other JWs on here have as well! And what I have said here is backed up by science! I mentioned all the risks, and I am drawing on recent and past research!

 

[Jenny Collins]

Of course he has misplaced his anger, - however, - I was giving the reason for that anger - in relation to this subject. His brother was brain damaged because his mother would not allow blood transfusions.



You have not trumped science in your posts. Authorities step in all the time for the benefit of children. I believe they should do so in this case - until the child is old enough to choose for themselves.



There is no proof the God of the Bible is real, or God. It is written by Bronze/Iron Age people - whom did not have modern science.



It is not my interpretation. The JEWS whose Tanakh it is - say YOU are wrong in your interpretation.

Also, obviously, there are two sides in the medical/scientific debate on blood transfusions, - with the majority of the authorities being on the side of giving transfusions.



No you haven't. You have shown a later religious groups ideas about another religion's texts. THEY don't agree with you.



Absolutely NOT! The treatment and murder of children for supposed adult sins, is exactly why I know the God of the Bible IS NOT GOD.



I believe the Isaac story is a teaching story showing the new teaching to NO LONGER offer the First Born as a Sacrifice to YHVH. An animal is used as a substitute. And YES the Hebrew did have child sacrifice.



No. The God of the Bible allows the things evil MEN want to do, - thus written by men - not God. The God of the Bible commits murder of the innocent.

*

If you are an atheist, then it is hopeless to convince you, this is an issue of your lack of belief in God, but oddly you are trying to explain the Bible to me and what it means, but you confess you don't even believe it

 

[Jenny Collins]

Of course he has misplaced his anger, - however, - I was giving the reason for that anger - in relation to this subject. His brother was brain damaged because his mother would not allow blood transfusions.



You have not trumped science in your posts. Authorities step in all the time for the benefit of children. I believe they should do so in this case - until the child is old enough to choose for themselves.



There is no proof the God of the Bible is real, or God. It is written by Bronze/Iron Age people - whom did not have modern science.



It is not my interpretation. The JEWS whose Tanakh it is - say YOU are wrong in your interpretation.

Also, obviously, there are two sides in the medical/scientific debate on blood transfusions, - with the majority of the authorities being on the side of giving transfusions.



No you haven't. You have shown a later religious groups ideas about another religion's texts. THEY don't agree with you.



Absolutely NOT! The treatment and murder of children for supposed adult sins, is exactly why I know the God of the Bible IS NOT GOD.



I believe the Isaac story is a teaching story showing the new teaching to NO LONGER offer the First Born as a Sacrifice to YHVH. An animal is used as a substitute. And YES the Hebrew did have child sacrifice.



No. The God of the Bible allows the things evil MEN want to do, - thus written by men - not God. The God of the Bible commits murder of the innocent.

*

"Majority of the authorities say blood is right" Ad populum! But anyway, I wouldn't even say that the majority say it is okay! Prove that claim! What is officially acknowledged is that the "majority of the medical community irresponsibly administer transfusions" not that the majority think they are good! If the majority of the medical community think they are so good, why are they gradually moving in the direction of bloodless surgery?

 

[psychoslice]

No they don't have the right to abuse their kids!

No they don't have the right to abuse their kids! What does that have to do with not giving their kids transfusions! Most transfusions are not needed! Even when a doctor may claim they are, they may not help and may harm! And if life is indeed at risk, if the kid dies, if God says you can't do something, you can't do it! Do you believe in the Bible? It says: "Abstain from blood" Even if a child's life is on the line, you have to do what God tells you! He gave the life in the first place, and Abraham was going to go as far as to sacrifice Isaac to be obedient! God himself, let his own son be sacrificed! Remember Jesus giving up his life? But even so, JWs do not "sacrifice" their kids, they just do not choose transfusions for them! There are very few JW kids who die from not having transfusions! Even if a doctor says the kid died for that reason, maybe the kid would have died anyway, or maybe the doctor made a mistake! It is very hard to say how the outcome would have turned out with or without a transfusion in some cases! Courts step in and sometimes take away the parent's rights to refuse, in which case you can't say the parent did anything wrong, as they were robbed of a choice! If they were given the right and refused the kid blood, then they did what was within their legal rights! And kids often do NOT want the transfusion! If I was given one as a child, I would have been pretty angry!

I myself don't believe in a god, so I am not under that burden, and when I say they should let their child have blood, of course I am talking about an emergency where the child has lost a lot of blood, if there was a god and he was suppose to be loving then I am sure he would understand, unless of course he is a unloving god.