In my first post Refuting Watchtarded Reasoning - 1. "If a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol, you wouldn't inject it..." Steve and several other posters made the pertinent point that when the blood-alcohol analogy is refuted, JWs will simply fall back on the reasoning that the use of the word "abstain" means to avoid taking it in by any means. Since this is indeed another common line of Watchtarded reasoning used by JWs, I've decided to make it the subject of this, my next refutation.
Abstain is indeed a word with somewhat of a broad meaning, or more accurately, a broad usage. One definition of the word is:
"to hold oneself back voluntarily, especially from something regarded as improper or unhealthy..."
Notice the definition does not specify any specific method of "holding oneself back". The exact method of avoiding the thing being abstained from is dependent on the particular context in which the word is used. This seems to be by design for the one word can then be used in a myriad different contexts to allude to myriads of different ways of avoiding things and actions. This makes for brevity of speech.
For example, instead of the writer of Acts 15:29 having to write:
"...keep refusing to eat things that are sacrificed to idols; blood; things that are strangled; and keep refusing to participate in acts of fornication."(two different methods of avoidance specified due to the different natures of the things to be avoided)
He only needs to write:
"...keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, blood, things that are strangled, and from fornication"(only the one word "abstain" need be used because its meaning does not specify methodology and is thus broad enough to cover each different kind of activity)
So Acts 15:29 isn't saying to hold yourself back from all kinds of uses of blood, specifically. No. It's saying:
"Hey, you need to not partake in each of these four things in the specific respective ways in which they're normally partaken of. I'm not going to specify what those specific ways of partaking for each of them are because that would make my statement needlessly wordy and I know you already know what they are or can easily find out by looking up what the Law of Moses says on them since that is, after all, the context of my mentioning them. OK?"
Context, context, context! The context determines the meaning of "abstain". The context of Acts 15:29 is all about which parts of the Mosaic Law, if any, are still binding on Christians. Thus what the Mosaic Law says about avoiding blood, delineates what it means to "abstain ... from blood". Acts 15 was not the issuing of a new all encompassing law on blood with expanded application extending to blood transfusions. Rather, it was a referral to existing OT laws forbidding specifically, the eating of blood. The use of the word is not to indicate an all encompassing avoidance of any single thing mentioned but rather, due to the fact that several things with different modes of participation are being mentioned.