-Removed-This has already been answered you tedious regurgitater of previously answered questions, what they do with their own body is their affair, not mine, not yours, their affair. Why do you want to deny people the right of self determination? I WOULD LET THEM DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN BODIES, now don't ask me again you very tedious and boring fellow and don't pretend that the question has not been answered, your stupid loaded questions are transparent for all to see and you seem incapable of entertaining anything beyond what your narrow and haste filled agenda allows you to accept.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieClaiming you think it is ok to call people names on a chess website forum because it is written your ancient Jewish God figure did such things 2000 years ago can hardly be called rational.
evidence? your steaming pile of projected assumptions? I mock your evidence.
Originally posted by FMFBlood is blood, is it not?
And here you are deliberately leaving words out of verse 29 in an attempt to make your point. Quite disgraceful really.
Verse 29 is about animal sacrifice and blood rites, and not life saving blood transfusions. And you are willing to pick out and extract words and remove them from their verse and isolate them from the complete sentence they came from in ord ...[text shortened]... ers that your corporate us-and-them affirming stance is somehow biblical, when it clearly isn't.
Originally posted by FMF(Matthew 16:25) For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
This cannot be depicted as having anything whatsoever to do with life saving blood transfusions.
(Genesis 9:3-40) Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
How long will mere blood save our lives?
If we obey God's command, we can gain everlasting life.
The choice is ours.
-Removed-JW's have legal instruments in place that are witnessed to and show their stand on the issue of blood. It's a protection against those who would illegally decide for others.
It is also a protection in cases where individuals are incapacitated and cannot answer for themselves.
There are many substitutes and procedures that can be used instead of transfusing blood. These have shown themselves to be effective in saving lives. They have also proven to be less risky and they are cost effective.
This is why bloodless surgery is in demand.
Who wants second rate medical treatment?