Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Jenny Collins]

As shown the Jews themselves have said you are incorrect in your interpretation, - as they can have transfusions.

So obviously Acts is NOT "implementing some of the same prohibitions!"

As shown by the Christian site I quoted, the Acts verse is about not participating in idolatrous pagan religious acts. Read the whole book. It has nothing to do with eating blood outside that context, - and obviously can't be extended thousands of years to include medical blood transfusions.

*

I have compared religions too, much study on my part

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes!

Okay, so you've now completely changed your position. You earlier said that upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12, and now you are saying upbringing CAN have an influence. Which is it?

Also believe that a person who is raised to believe blood transfusions are okay, will likely think that way for life

Unless they are denied blood transfusions by their parents and die as a direct result.

 

[Jenny Collins]

I am Agnostic.

I do not have to believe in the Bible to logically debate the meaning of verses within it, especially in context to the time and culture, and Jewish understanding of THEIR texts.

I was raised Christian, and studied the Bible, Comparative Religion, and Archaeology.

*

You studied religion and the Bible and are agnostic, which means you are unsure! I studied the Bible and religion and AM sure what to believe! So if you are confused after studying it, why are you trying to correct someone who knows what they believe?

 

[Jenny Collins]

Okay, so you've now completely changed your position. You earlier said that upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12, and now you are saying upbringing CAN have an influence. Which is it?


Unless they are denied blood transfusions by their parents and die as a direct result.

No, I did not change my position at all, do you put words in your spouses mouth too?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I believe it for the reasons that I ALREADY stated! Read over what I said

So you believe it because the Bible says "eat" and you choose to interpret it as "transfuse" for no reason.

 

[Ingledsva]

Also what do you think of Hell fire believers who think God eternally tortures people? Why would their feelings suddenly become so compassionate about this issue? Think about it: "Those big, bad JWs won't give their kids blood" Then the next sentence: "God is so loving and merciful that he tortures people for eternity if they don't follow him"

Tanakh doesn't say that. It is a later idea from Pagan contact.

*

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I did not change my position at all, do you put words in your spouses mouth too?

Now you're blatantly lying Here it is again, emphasis mine:

Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?

Yes, I was brought up by dysfunctional parents and no religion was instilled in me!

 

[Jenny Collins]

No, I did not change my position at all, do you put words in your spouses mouth too?

Upbringing influences children for good and bad! It does shape belief, but at some point in a person's life they are confronted with ideas that may conflict with how they were raised! This may happen at 11 as in my case, or 60 years old, usually somewhere between the two ages! Some people won't change for anything, others do! It is up to the individual how they ultimately end up thinking! And I believe being raised as a JW is an influence, but a good one! You would say a bad influence! So who is correct? It is subjective! That is why America has laws to protect freedom of religion and thought! I make decisions for myself and my family based on my conscience, not yours

 

[Deeje]

It is pointless arguing about the ill effects of blood transfusion to people who will never see them. If the doctors themselves are warning people, who are we to try and get through to them? You make the choice to believe whatever you like.

That is OK. Its your choice to ignore the evidence. We like to act of information, not misinformation, designed to keep those $$$$ flowing in. Any surgeon worth considering for any procedure, if they insist on the right to use blood, then they are basically telling you that they are not much of a surgeon. The best surgeons are those who will tell you they don't need it, no matter what religion you are.

Please refer to the following.....whilst stating that blood transfusions are a "necessary staple" in "cardiac surgery" there is "irrefutable evidence" that transfusions cause "detrimental long and short term outcomes".

It costs the blood bank $200 to acquire it and up to $2,400 to deliver a single unit of blood. Its a huge industry, so there are those with vested interests in its preservation, despite the fact that there is "irrefutable evidence" that transfusions cause "detrimental long and short term outcomes".

"Allogeneic blood transfusions are a necessary staple of any diverse cardiac surgery program. Nevertheless, the scientific literature is replete with irrefutable data showing that allogeneic transfusions, although at times an absolute necessity, are in fact detrimental to short, intermediate, and long term outcomes, increased infection rates, prolonged ventilator times, disease transmission, allergic reactions, cross match errors, lung injury, increased mortality 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and are very expensive (Tables 1 and 2). It is estimated that a single unit of packed red blood cells (PRBC's), with an acquisition cost of two hundred U.S. dollars ($200.00) has an actual cost of between one thousand six hundred ($1,600.00) and two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400.00) to transfuse it to the patient 9 . This actual cost includes all of the direct and variable personnel costs (Figures 1 and 2) along with the increased costs to any one patient's hospital stay as a result of a transfusion-associated morbidity (Figure 3). The acquisition cost for a unit of aphaeresed platelets is above five hundred U.S. dollars ($500.00 Table 2). Based on the formula used for PRBC's the actual cost of platelets is also incredibly higher. In addition, platelets have also been associated with serious adverse events in cardiac surgery 10 ."

Internet Scientific Publications
Are any of you listening? You can never say you weren't warned.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Tanakh doesn't say that. It is a later idea from Pagan contact.

*

I don't believe in Hell, didn't you realize that?

 

[Jenny Collins]

A

Now you're blatantly lying Here it is again, emphasis mine:

Did you know that the blood business is a huge money making scheme? Of course there is resistance to abandoning them

 

[psychoslice]

What makes me laugh about this who blood thing is, if god truly didn't want us to have blood transfusions why didn't he make it clear, wouldn't he have known about the future of blood transfusions, or does he like to see us confused and here arguing over bloody blood.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Now you're blatantly lying Here it is again, emphasis mine:

It is always intellectual dishonesty when someone talks in such exaggerated speech and claims someone is blatantly lying, when they simply correct your twisting what they said! I prefer to talk to people who just talk straight and don't interject exaggerations

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Upbringing influences children for good and bad! It does shape belief, but at some point in a person's life they are confronted with ideas that may conflict with how they were raised! This may happen at 11 as in my case, or 60 years old, usually somewhere between the two ages! Some people won't change for anything, others do! It is up to the individual how they ultimately end up thinking! And I believe being raised as a JW is an influence, but a good one! You would say a bad influence! So who is correct? It is subjective! That is why America has laws to protect freedom of religion and thought! I make decisions for myself and my family based on my conscience, not yours

So, if I believe that the best thing for children is for them to drink battery acid, do you agree with my freedom to believe and practice that? It's just subjective, right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is always intellectual dishonesty when someone talks in such exaggerated speech and claims someone is blatantly lying, when they simply correct your twisting what they said! I prefer to talk to people who just talk straight and don't interject exaggerations

There was no exaggeration. I directly asked you "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?" and you answered "YES". There is no twisting of words at all. If you can't keep track of what you write, you need to consider what you are writing more carefully before you post it.

 

[Ingledsva]

So you believe in the murder of children as long as they are in a womb? That troubles my conscience and my interpretation, so what are you going to do about it? Can I inflict my conscience on you? Should I try to change the law on abortion?

We have a logical compromise as to how late abortions can be performed, for a reason.

No sentience before that date, and unknown/iffy after that date.

Jewish sites will tell you that a child was not considered a human being until the head emerged at birth.

*

 

[Jenny Collins]

What makes me laugh about this who blood thing is, if god truly didn't want us to have blood transfusions why didn't he make it clear, wouldn't he have known about the future of blood transfusions, or does he like to see us confused and here arguing over bloody blood.

Interesting point! But saying "Abstain from blood" is clear! But going further with that, the Bible is not written in an overly obvious way, it is written in a way that weeds out sheep from goats! The goat will look at it superficially and scoff, and the sheeplike person will try to find the explanation! When Jesus told the crowds that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood, they left off following him because it sounded outrageous! Then his apostles although not understanding at first, probed deeper and he explained what he really meant! Some have been "granted ears for hearing, and eyes for seeing" others not

 

[Jenny Collins]

There was no exaggeration. I directly asked you "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?" and you answered "YES". There is no twisting of words at all. If you can't keep track of what you write, you need to consider what you are writing more carefully before you post it.

Yes, upbringing influences a child by 12! Where is the lie there?

 

[Jenny Collins]

We have a logical compromise as to how late abortions can be performed, for a reason.

No sentience before that date, and unknown/iffy after that date.

Jewish sites will tell you that a child was not considered a human being until the head emerged at birth.

*

Again with the Jewish sites saying this and that! I am not a Jew, nor are you, you are agnostic

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, upbringing influences a child by 12! Where is the lie there?

Because I asked you "Do you believe upbringing has no influence on a child by the time they are 12?", and you answered "YES". You are now saying the EXACT opposite of that and saying that you didn't change your opinion. In other words:

Earlier, you agreed with the statement "children are not influenced by upbringing by the time they are 12".

Now, you disagree with the statement "children are not influenced by upbringing by the time they are 12".

Do you honestly believe there was no change in position? I'm willing to accept that earlier you just misunderstood the question, so why not just admit that instead of blatantly lying about what you obviously wrote?