30 Sep 14
Originally posted by stellspalfiesorry I refuse to answer anything that reduces the debate to mere opinion, if you have anything objective ill consider that, perhaps you would like to comment on the link that i provided for as far as i can discern not a single one of you can bring yourselves to do so.
i have three questions for you to dodge.
do you agree that currently there are some medical conditions in which blood is more effective than blood substitutes.
do you agree that there are some medical conditions in which it would be dangerous to the patient to use blood substitutes rather than blood.
is using blood substitutes.................natural.
30 Sep 14
Originally posted by Proper Knobsigh, lets ask you the same question, has a blood transfusion either directly or indirectly killed someone? I have already stated that it may have saved a life although so might an alternative if it had been offered.
Sorry, was there an answer to the question asked in that blather of yours? Here it is again, do you accept blood transfusions have saved people's lives? A straight forward yes or no will suffice.
30 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf blood transfusions were 100% safe, would you permit them?
sorry I refuse to answer anything that reduces the debate to mere opinion, if you have anything objective ill consider that, perhaps you would like to comment on the link that i provided for as far as i can discern not a single one of you can bring yourselves to do so.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
30 Sep 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieahhh the typical robbie dodge. if, in your words it is mere opinion regarding the comparisons of blood and blood substitutes then you are also concluding that anything you have said about the benefits of blood substitutes is therefore also mere opinion........if you are offering mere opinion then you are contradicting and being hypocritical when refusing to answer my question on grounds that an answer would be mere opinion......tut,tut!
sorry I refuse to answer anything that reduces the debate to mere opinion, if you have anything objective ill consider that, perhaps you would like to comment on the link that i provided for as far as i can discern not a single one of you can bring yourselves to do so.
30 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfiemore personal tabliod style accusations, tra la la la , skipity doo dah skipity day, merrily merrily row the boat gently down the stream
ahhh the typical robbie dodge. if, in your words it is mere opinion regarding the comparisons of blood and blood substitutes then you are also concluding that anything you have said about the benefits of blood substitutes is therefore also mere opinion........if you are offering mere opinion then you are contradicting and being hypocritical when refusing to answer my question on grounds that an answer would be mere opinion......tut,tut!
30 Sep 14
I believe as FMF has stated the health issues with blood transfusion is a red herring as it's clear that there is a small risk. I think the issue comes back to can blood transfusion be equated with actually eating blood? If it can't be substantiated with scripture then it's not correct or right
Manny
Originally posted by menace71FMF the apostate, bwahahaha, he cannot be trusted and neither can cabbagejeester
I believe as FMF has stated the health issues with blood transfusion is a red herring as it's clear that there is a small risk. I think the issue comes back to can blood transfusion be equated with actually eating blood? If it can't be substantiated with scripture then it's not correct or right
Manny
answer the question,
have thousands and possibly millions of people died as a direct or indirect consequence of blood transfusions?