Ah, Yadirfsky, you've finally managed to insert a bit of intelligence deep down in a post. Hence, I will reply.
:: Indeed, a careful exposition on all of the relevant scriptures shows that the real requirement is that anyone who kills an animal for food was required to pour out the blood as a sign of respect for the life-giver God.
: Good point, really. Yes, the reason for God's requirement that the blood be poured out on the ground is because *life* had been taken (ended), and so to do as God commanded showed that the life-taker had a proper respect for *life* and the Giver of life. But when blood is taken from a donor such person's *life* is not taken (ended).
Damn! Yadirf! You've understood! There's hope for you yet!
More seriously, given your comments, you have no choice but to acknowledge that the Society's ban on blood transfusions is not Scriptural.
: Even so, I doubt that I would ever submit to a blood transfusion; to me, it's not very appealing to think of someone else's blood circulating inside my body.
I agree with your emotional feelings here. But if I were faced with the prognosis of imminent death as opposed to a few risks associated with a transfusion, along with a high probability that I would die without it, I would opt for the transfusion.
This is essentially the same as the present situation among JWs, that the older ones often shun organ transplants, but the younger ones have no problem. But up until the early 1950s, the desired reaction among JWs would have been that the younger ones essentially collapse into a heep of do-nothingness along with mild suggestions that everupme keep up the fight.
If you're ever faced with the reality that you might die if you don't take a particular brand of tested medicine, then you know exactly what is being said here. And Christianity is purportedly the epitome of reasonableness.
AlanF
