JW stance on blood transfusions for animals?
by phats 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
ScenicViewer
"...To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten..." Watchtower 1964 2/15 p.127
Watchtower's main argument against transfusion is that eating blood and transfusing blood are the same thing - you are "consuming" it either way. Why does Watchtower think this should apply to animals, since eating other animals, including the blood, is a way of life in the animal kingdom (as illustrated by compound complex's cat and mouse story above).
Not eating blood only applies to humans. I can't see a shred of logic to prohibiting transfusion for animals.
-
-
eyeuse2badub
Don't forget that between 1968 and 1981 the borg also said that organ transplants were against jehober's law! Well I'm a guessin' that one of the old geezers back in bethel needed an organ transplant, so they shitcanned that biblical law and now it's a matter of conscience! lol
just saying!
-
TD
Why does Watchtower think this should apply to animals, since eating other animals, including the blood, is a way of life in the animal kingdom
I suspect that's one reason why they stubbornly refuse to let go of the idiotic idea that the entire animal kingdom was originally vegetarian.
-
careful
Thanks, dozy, for the quotation. How utterly Freddie Franzesque:
"in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian."
-
Iown Mylife
i have a vague memory of an article mentioning leeches, and how wrong it is to use leeches for medicinal purposes because the procedure would force the leech to consume blood. ---i know i wouldn't have dreamed that!
-
alanv
Leaches have a special dispensation from Jehooba