Originally posted by roigamBlood allows humans to live. Without blood we die. Blood transfusions save lives. If your God figure wanted to forbid blood transfusions in the same way He apparently wanted to forbid animal sacrifice, blood rites and uses of animal blood as food, then surely He would have placed the prohibition in the Bible in a way that did not require you to extract and isolate words - remove them from the complete sentence they belong in - and present them out of their obvious and historical context.
Blood is blood, is it not?
Originally posted by roigamIt's good that there are options and that advances are being made.
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?
Does it anger you that the state might intervene in order to keep a child alive with a blood transfusion in a situation where its parents wanted to let it die?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo one is forcing you to understand.
Blood allows humans to live. Without blood we die. Blood transfusions save lives. If your God figure wanted to forbid blood transfusions in the same way He apparently wanted to forbid animal sacrifice, blood rites and uses of animal blood as food, then surely He would have placed the prohibition in the Bible in a way that did not require you to extract and isola ...[text shortened]... complete sentence they belong in - and present them out of their obvious and historical context.
Do you understand the idea of a series of equal items where a condition that applies to one applies to all?
To focus on one of those items, to pick it out of the series is not improper.
Originally posted by FMFWould it anger you if some dangerous Rx was forced on your child against your will?
It's good that there are options and that advances are being made.
Does it anger you that the state might intervene in order to keep a child alive with a blood transfusion in a situation where its parents wanted to let it die?
These days many doctors practice holistic medicine allowing people to decide what they will accept as Rx on their own bodies. Do parents have the responsibility to do what is best for their child?
Originally posted by roigamWhat I see as "improper" is taking a verse about animal sacrifice and blood rites and extracting the word "blood" from it and then applying a prohibition to blood transfusions ~ a medical procedure that has absolutely nothing to do with animal sacrifice and blood rites and absolutely nothing to do with what Acts 15: 28,29 is actually about.
Do you understand the idea of a series of equal items where a condition that applies to one applies to all? To focus on one of those items, to pick it out of the series is not improper.
It began as a way to allow Jehovah’s Witnesses and others with religious prohibitions on blood transfusions to undergo surgeries. But at some hospitals, bloodless surgeries are now the preferred method for all patients. “If there’s any way to avoid getting a blood transfusion, one is better off in general if they can avoid it,” says Dr. Abe Steinberger, a neurosurgeon at Englewood Hospital in New Jersey.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2013/07/12/july-12-2013-bloodless-surgeries/19167/
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe mainstreaming of this technique is to be welcomed.
It began as a way to allow Jehovah’s Witnesses and others with religious prohibitions on blood transfusions to undergo surgeries. But at some hospitals, bloodless surgeries are now the preferred method for all patients. “If there’s any way to avoid getting a blood transfusion, one is better off in general if they can avoid it,” says Dr. Abe Steinberg ...[text shortened]...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2013/07/12/july-12-2013-bloodless-surgeries/19167/