JW spokesman: We refuse blood, but it's a personal choice

by MrMonroe 42 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • lovelylil

    When the ONLY choices are take blood/ get disfellowshipped, and don't take blood/possible die/but remain a witness, then that is really NO CHOICE at all!

    A real PERSONAL CHOICE would be one that is FREE of any reprecussions from the WT.

  • agonus

    I want you to hand over your wallet, not because I have a gun to your head, but because YOU choose to hand it over. Of course, if you don't, YOU'VE chosen for me to pull the trigger...

  • sizemik
    A real PERSONAL CHOICE would be one that is FREE of any reprecussions from the WT. . . . lovelylil

    That statement coupled with agonus' illustration are the precise and concise description of the reality.

    When you look at it in it's short form . . . the rest of it is just a cloud cover of weasely words . . . reams and reams of them.

    Their brains have been totally hijacked . . . and any honesty dissappeared along with them.

  • JRK

    It is all about litigation and potential litigation.


  • jwfacts

    wha happended - It was a letter to travelling overseers, so not a KM or read to the congregations. It was to be inserted into the old elders book at page 95, which lists failure to abstain from blood as wrongdoing for which to form a judicial committee. It is now listed on pages 110 - 111 of the new elders book as cause for disassociation.

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    It's not a matter of free choice.

    Not always prohibited by the Watchtower Society in the past, the current prohibition against blood transfusions is more contentious and polarizing than few other issues pertaining to the Jehovah's Witnesses. Seen by most outsiders as a ghoulish mediaeval ritual reminiscent of the occult and finding no valid support in the Bible, the prohibition against receiving blood in the form of a blood transfusion is regarded by the Jehovah's Witnesses as a mandate, one of God's immutable laws.

    As the information below illustrates, not only are the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs with respect to blood transfusions indefensible in light of scripture and tradition, the Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs' as put in to practice verge on the hypocritical; allowing the transfusion of some blood components but not others has become a deadly farce. Prohibiting blood transfusions based on snippets of scriptural text taken out of context and indifferent to sound, thoughtful biblical scholarship has caused untold misery and pain, and death; the senseless, unwarranted infliction of emotional distress on thousands.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs regarding the prohibition of blood transfusions becomes all the more heinous when it comes to young children, many of whom have died in furtherance of their parents' misguided beliefs. The blood transfusion prohibition is astounding in light of Jeremiah 32:35 which provides in part, "They built high places to Baal in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, and immolated their sons and daughters to Molech, bringing sin upon Judah; this I never commanded them, nor did it even enter my mind that they should practice such abomination." Here, God instructs man NOT to cause a child to be killed as a form of sacrifice to God. Clearly, sacrificing a child by denying him or her a needed blood transfusion is no different. In no way does such a denial of blood and the child's resulting death please the Almighty. It never entered God's mind.

    Any individual contemplating joining the Jehovah's Witnesses religion is forewarned to research this issue carefully, study the history and biblical context of the blood prohibition and understand what it means to not 'eat blood' because the Jehovahs Witnesses beliefs with respect to this gruesome act is not approved by the Almighty, finds no reliable support in scripture and comes close to being a homicide or a suicide. Avoid the anguish for everyone involved and think clearly on this matter. The Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on blood transfusions are not to be taken lightly.

    jwfacts.com and ajwrb.org and marvinshilmer.blogspot.com are good beginnings.


  • stillstuckcruz

    I have a question. So if I am dying and I take the blood transfusion, and I point out that this article says its a personal choice, what will their response be? They would likely say something to the effect of, "the media misinterpreted our words" or something

  • MrMonroe

    No Stillsuck, they will say, you have made your personal choice and now we must shun you. By your actions you have breached one of our fundamental teachings and have therefore disassociated yourself.

  • ekruks

    To refuse blood is no more a personal choice than it would be to refuse military draft papers - sure, there's a choice: do it, or face the punishment. Sounds like the 'free will' spoken of by Christianity!

  • sd-7

    It's interesting. I learned a few months ago that my JW wife had a blood transfusion, as she was born prematurely. It occurred to me how much cognitive dissonance would have to happen for her to deny such a treatment to her own child, while knowing that said treatment saved her very life, that she would not be here if it weren't for that blood transfusion.

    I'll state the obvious. If it is a personal choice, that implies that no external pressure whatsoever is being exerted on the individual involved. Knowing that this is not the case, it is abundantly clear that it is not a personal choice. The spokesman quoted here is quite aware of that. He said "we refuse blood" to preface the sentence. Therefore, the policy is clear--there is no room for personal choice if "we refuse blood". If it was personal choice, he would have just said, "the taking of blood is a personal choice".


Share this