Posted by Cygnus [Cygnus] on October 29, 1999 at 14:04:07 {CAtoZJLIp2QPTcl/wbssL4bdfUTIaI}:
In Reply to: *RE: POST FOR everyone posted by Fred Goff on October 29, 1999 at 13:22:59:
: The question is not: Why does WTS allow blood fractions if blood transfusuions are prohibited. That's simply a policy decision on a basic doctrine: i.e. the defining of what does and does not constitute blood.
Not really. It is a decision based upon what the medical community by and large has determined the major components of blood to be. These include erythrocytes, leukocytes, platelets, and plasma. Plasma proteins and clotting factors are apparently not considered major components of blood.
Relevant to the issue as well is what constitutes "life-sustaining" treatment as opposed to prevention of disease or complications due to burns and so forth.
: It's legalistic hair-splitting, sure, but no worse than certain fundies screaming that baptism is a work and the sinner's prayer is not. (I've never been able to figure that one out.)
Except for one thing: nobody is able to prove that baptism does or does not "save" one's soul, or that prayer has any real value. It is proven that blood transfusions do save lives.
: The real question is: What scriptural justification does the WTS have for interpreting eating of blood in the OT to include transfusions.
I'm not aware that they attempt to do so. Their main argument (expanded upon in Greg Stafford's book), is that the clause "abstain... from blood" in Acts 15:29 contains no active verb. It does not say "abstain from eating or drinking blood." It merely says to "abstain" from it. That language allows a wide variety of possible means of abstention, which Jehovah could certainly have foreseen, including 20th century standard medical practices.