21 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerYour are not wise enough spiritually to figure that one out? Just think and use reasoning a little.
If you get a bloody nose and tilt your head back to help stuanch the flow, and in the process accidently swallow your own blood, does that require repentance?
along the same lines, if you have a bleeding ulcer and the blood is passed through the intestines instead of vomited, is that a sin?
if the blood is vomited, do you have to save it? (it is part of your soul right?
enquiring minds want to know
21 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesteri told you before, now go away and look up self determination and stop spamming up the forum with your ignorance of the principles, both medical and ethical with your sensationalistic tabloid rubbish, you have contributed nothing to the forums understanding and continue to display an ignorance bordering on criminal negligence of the details.
To allow someone to die, to allow your loved one to die... because you have been indoctrinated to believe that receiving a blood transfusion is evil, is the work of extreme cult thought manipulation and comes from the pit.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is hardly self-determination in the case of children. Even if medical doctors are able to obtain a court order for a blood transfusion, provided they have time, your cult will have indoctrinated them that blood transfusions are a moral evil. If need arises in the future, when they can claim self-determination, they will have been so brainwashed. You, ironically, have blood on your hands.
i told you before, now go away and look up self determination and stop spamming up the forum with your ignorance of the principles, both medical and ethical with your sensationalistic tabloid rubbish, you have contributed nothing to the forums understanding and continue to display an ignorance bordering on criminal negligence of the details.
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerThat has been explained many times so go back and look. And don't you really think that was a silly question, but I guess you had to go there. Common sense would say there is nothing you can do about that so no it's not a blood transfusion or eating blood. Next!!!!
oh I know what my perspective is, I am interested in yours
edit: remind us all again why you can't have blood transfusions?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCould you provide citations for these research articles? How can we assess the credibility of these statements without context, without review, without any knowledge of their qualifications?
suicidal and wanton parental negligence, hardly! more sensationalist tabloid journalism!
Here are some quotes from medical professionals that you will not find on the front page of your local tabloid
The reference work Dailey’s Notes on Blood: “Some physicians maintain that allogeneic blood [blood from another human] is a dangerous drug and ...[text shortened]... e to the transfusion?”
thank you Zahlanzi you insight into the matter is truly extraordinary.
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KThe bible tells us to abstain from blood but yet were blood guilty if we touch it or use it? Really? Your positive? Show us from the Bible where it says that?
It is hardly self-determination in the case of children. Even if medical doctors are able to obtain a court order for a blood transfusion, provided they have time, your cult will have indoctrinated them that blood transfusions are a moral evil. If need arises in the future, when they can claim self-determination, they will have been so brainwashed. You, ironically, have blood on your hands.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBlood fractions do not substitute for whole blood transfusions. Plasma, the main source of blood fractions, does not contain any blood cells. There are many circumstances in which blood cells are required. A man in a car accident, with massive blood loss, needs full blood. Plasma would not supply him the necessary oxygen-carriers. A lymphoma sufferer would also especially require white blood cells. Lymphoma destroys these cells and consequently the sufferer is susceptible to a number of other fairly trivial infections (such as the common cold) which can be fatal.
yes one may accept blood fractions, for then it may be reasoned that it is no longer whole blood. Plasma contains between 52 and 62 percent whole blood, however it also contains, proteins, albumins, globulins, fibrinogen, nutrients, hormones, respiratory gases, electrolytes, vitamins and nitrogenous wastes.
For example as part of a treatment or ...[text shortened]... urdity that you mention, for as far as i can determine, its a very reasoned and informed choice.
The whole thing is bizarre because the process of deriving blood fractions still involves blood donations. The person must provide blood samples and must then donate blood, from which the plasma is separated and extracted. Since plasma constitutes the major component of blood too, it seems bizarre as well that your prohibition does not apply to it as well. It comes from the body, is necessary for life and is a major component of blood, why doesn't the same moral reasoning apply?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75Do you abstain from animal blood as well? This is a genuine question, Do you purchase only Kosher meat from which the blood has been drained?
The bible tells us to abstain from blood but yet were blood guilty if we touch it or use it? Really? Your positive? Show us from the Bible where it says that?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is an affront to humanity and decency that you (JW's) would allow someone to die rather than permit them a blood transfusion.
i told you before, now go away and look up self determination and stop spamming up the forum with your ignorance of the principles, both medical and ethical with your sensationalistic tabloid rubbish, you have contributed nothing to the forums understanding and continue to display an ignorance bordering on criminal negligence of the details.
The fact that you consider me stating this as being "spamming", "ignorant" and "sensationalist", or that I failed to obey you first time you ranted at me, is comically irrelevant and merely another effort to distract the casual reader from the horrible truth.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75You will have to clarify. I do not know what the JWs practice. Does the commandment to abstain from blood include animal blood or only refer to blood transfusions?
What does the bible say to do with meat before you eat it? Do you not know? We simply make sure this is done.
21 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kwe are not talking about self determination in the case of children as its now been pointed out numerous times, we have absolutely no jurisdiction in the case of children, your objections are once again unfounded and ill conceived and ignorant of even the meanest principles. Once again a post without content based on nothing but a purely hypothetical and imaginary scenario whence mere unsubstantiated and emotional charged opinion masquerades as wisdom, You too have contributed nothing to the forums understanding on these issues and have used it as nothing more than a tool to except to express your prejudices! Considering the number of Catholic priests who have wasted the lives of and traumatised thousands of children through horrific acts of paedophilia, your comments are bold words indeed!
It is hardly self-determination in the case of children. Even if medical doctors are able to obtain a court order for a blood transfusion, provided they have time, your cult will have indoctrinated them that blood transfusions are a moral evil. If need arises in the future, when they can claim self-determination, they will have been so brainwashed. You, ironically, have blood on your hands.