Thanks for the tips. Of course, I would approach this subject in an inquisitive, good-natured way, so as not to implicate myself. That's what I apprecaited the most about the Jensen letters. By questioning the Scriptural reasoning on whether or not we could accept certain blood fractions and not others, he exposes that this is something that the Bible is not clear about at all. This then forces the listener to question why we even have "a stance" on an issue that is so foggy in the scriptures.
We are constantly reminded to examine the "spirit" of the law. The fact is, that the Bible writers could never have fathomed that blood would have any life-saving ability via transfusion or other medical use. So, this application, in my mind, must automatically be removed from the equation. The concern, as Jensen points out, was about respect for life. I really enjoyed the comparison he draws on regarding fornication, and how just one small aspect of "porneia" would never be acceptible according to the scriptures and JW doctrine. As also with the fruit from the tree in the center of Eden. Eve likely would have faced the same penalty if she'd only eaten the skin of the fruit. She was threatened not even to "touch" it. So, Jehovah's Witness, if they want to reason from the Scriptures, should be "All or Nothing" when it comes to the use of blood it seems.
Ray Franz points to the fact though, that rules such as this are likely never to change, due to long standing tradition. (Matt 15:6) The implications of relaxing the stand regarding blood would be Earth-shattering. The resulting defection would be immense. Not to mention the lawsuits. So, they are trapped, hanging on to this teaching probably for good. If anything happens, I could see it going the other direction, with the rule becoming more strict - a complete restriciton against all blood fractions, particles, components of any sort.
There is some really solid SCRIPTURAL reasoning that exisits in these letters from Jensen. I'm glad I took the time to read them (though a bit repetitive and LONG). I'm going to start pulling all of the publication references tomorrow so I can use them in my Family Worship, if I decide to approach this subject from such a contradictory angle.
We are like fleshly brothers. We have been friends since infancy. We have both exchanged "apostate" views in the past. This is not new territory for us. I would never have said anything to him if I thought there was any risk that he would report me or try to implicate me.