This has been a fixation for me lately, mostly in trying to appeal to my mother to at least consider blood transfusions as an option in the most extenuating circumstances. My attempts have fallen flat thus far. We've discussed principles versus rules, and though she concedes that principles are in fact more important than rules, she reverses her stance when it comes to this particular issue, and rules become more important than principles. We have, of course, discussed fractions, but she holds technology and medical advancement to blame for the very existence of this issue, rather than the policy-makers who dictate what she may or may not take into her body.
We recently had a discussion about the meaning of "abstain from blood." I suggested to her that this perhaps means "abstain from blood-guilt" or in other words "abstain from murder" or "abstain from sacrifice" but of course she said there is no other way to interpret this than in the most literal sense. One of the most frustrating things about the way my mother sees the world is that she doesn't understand that humans may interpret things in different ways, even if they have the same intentions. It's like two people reading a novel and having completely different pictures of a character in their minds even though they're reading precisely the same words. She also tells me we can get the bible's interpretation of the bible which is nonsensical - a book cannot interpret itself. I guess I should know by now that logic doesn't apply to JW rules, nor to my mother's way of thinking, but I can't help but try.
Does anyone else think that "abstain from blood" could quite reasonably be interpreted as "abstain from blood-guilt?"