Anon sounds like he is in a panic with his response. He lists an abundance of references to biblical prohibitions regarding blood without attention to context. This is exactly how the error was made by the Watchtower in the first instance.
All his points have been answered fully earlier in the thread but I will briefly review them again.
There are two key passages in Leviticus that refute the Watchtower's position on blood transfusions.
The first is Leviticus 11 which discusses 'unclean' animals. They are not to be eaten and when they die even a vessel that they fall into is to be destroyed. So if an Israelite finds a dead mouse in his favourite pot, too bad. It has to be smashed.
Then verse 38 turns to the question of the death of an animal that is 'clean', - 'Now if an animal that you use for food dies...'
I have lived in the countryside all my adult life and have could hardly count how often I have seen an animal that has simply died for no known reason. I have never once seen an animal that has died of 'an eviscerating accident' and bled out. That suggestion is self-evidently foolish, is not supported by the context and has never been proposed by the Watchtower. I will come to their comments on this verse shortly.
The Law states that a clean animal that dies can still be used for food but doing so results in temporary uncleanness. The blood of the animal is not considered in Leviticus 11.
The context of Leviticus 17 is the killing of animals for food or for sacrifice. In every instance the blood must be poured out on the ground or brought to the Tabernacle and offered back to God the lifegiver. Then in verse 15 the Law restates the provision of Leviticus 11:38 by allowing an animal 'found dead' to be eaten, resulting only in temporary uncleanness.
Reconciling these contrasting Laws about blood is simple if we consider the underlying principle. God gives life to all living things. Blood is a symbol of life. When an animal's life is taken respect for its life must be shown by symbolically returning the life to God. The animal's blood must be poured on the ground or on the altar.
If an animal is found already dead then nobody is responsible for taking the life and the blood has no sacred symbolism. Eating - or simply touching - the dead body of the animal only results in temporary uncleanness. There was nothing sinful in doing things that caused uncleanness. Having sex, giving birth, menstruation or burying a dead relative all caused uncleanness.
The only time the Watchtower have addressed this issue they claimed that Lev. 11:38 (they ignored Lev. 17:15) must be about accidentally eating an animal that had not been bled. The fact they have not repeated this in many years is a reflection of how silly this suggestion is. It is also exposed by another aspect of the Law. An additional set of restrictions applied only to the Priesthood who must remain clean to perform their sacred duties. Among other things they were not permitted to avail themselves of the provision to eat an animal found already dead.
Every single one of the many references to blood listed in WT comments on the subject fits easily into this model. Since donated blood does not depend on the murder of the donor transfusions do not contravene bible principles.