Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince the technique was developed, how many lives have blood transfusions saved do you think ~ say, in the modern era, the last 70 years or so?
Our objection is not based whether they are good or bad (although i suspect the 3000 haemophiliacs in Scotland who were given contaminated blood might acquiesce that they were bad), but on religious principles.
5 edits
Originally posted by FMFIts impossible to say for you would need to prove that every person who was administered a blood transfusion would not have survived without alternative treatment. Plus it ignores all those persons who have died as a direct consequence of receiving contaminated blood or through complications of which there are literally tens of thousands. Also its irrelevant because our objection is not based on whether its 'good or bad', but on religious principles.
Since the technique was developed, how many lives have blood transfusions saved do you think ~ say, in the modern era, the last 70 years or so?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo you would not. You can just take a look at how many people were given blood transfusions and then lived as a result. One can then bear in mind what and where and when sufficient or appropriate alternative treat would have or might have been an option or will maybe be an option in the future.
Its impossible to say for you would need to prove that every person who was administered a blood transfusion would not have survived without alternative treatment.
So, in 70 years all around the world, how many times have life-saving blood transfusions been administered? Whether one day all these treatments can be replaced or superseded by other approaches can also be discussed, but that topic does not preclude having some kind of estimated figure for number of life-saving blood transfusions.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave there been more than "tens of thousands" of people's lives saved by blood transfusions around the world in the last 70 years, would you say?
Plus it ignores all those persons who have died as a direct consequence of receiving contaminated blood or through complications of which there are literally tens of thousands.
Originally posted by FMFi have no idea why dont you do your own research ?
No you would not. You can just take a look at how many people were given blood transfusions and then lived as a result. One can then bear in mind what and where and when sufficient or appropriate alternative treat would have or might have been an option or will maybe be an option in the future.
So, in 70 years all around the world, how many times have life-s ...[text shortened]... not preclude having some kind of estimated figure for number of life-saving blood transfusions.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFOn the contrary your argument for the use of blood transfusions lies in that they have saved many lives and yet we have no way of knowing how many persons would have survived if they had requested or been given alternative treatment making any estimation you give for the the use of blood transfusions on the basis that 'they save lives', not only inaccurate but misleading.
No you would not. You can just take a look at how many people were given blood transfusions and then lived as a result. One can then bear in mind what and where and when sufficient or appropriate alternative treat would have or might have been an option or will maybe be an option in the future.
So, in 70 years all around the world, how many times have life-s ...[text shortened]... not preclude having some kind of estimated figure for number of life-saving blood transfusions.
3 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieAnd yet on page one, in the very first article there is a brochure which explains our stance with scriptural references, how you could have missed this is hard to say if you have read the first few pages.
ive read the first few pages and it mentions nothing about blood transfusions. how do you get from blood being 'life' to blood transfusions being bad?
Also where have I claimed that they are bad? If I have not claimed it then why are you saying that I have? Do you also have a tendency to believe your own propaganda like Effhim and the Jeester?
You do know that the links are clickable , right?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei read it, i can find no biblical reference that say blood transfusions are against gods will. they only ever discuss eating blood.
And yet on page one, in the very first article there is a brochure which explains our stance with scriptural references, how you could have missed this is hard to say if you have read the first few pages.
Also where have I claimed that they are bad? If I have not claimed it then why are you saying that I have? Do you also have a tendency to bel ...[text shortened]... own propaganda like Effhim and the Jeester?
You do know that the links are clickable , right?
my apologies if ive misrepresented your view on blood transfusions. does your opinion differ to that of your gods?
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieCould it be that the Bible does not mention the term 'blood transfusion?'
i read it, i can find no biblical reference that say blood transfusions are against gods will. they only ever discuss eating blood.
my apologies if ive misrepresented your view on blood transfusions. does your opinion differ to that of your gods?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell blood transfusions have saved many many millions of lives; that surely in and of itself is not in dispute. You are challenging the efficacy of these life-saving treatments compared to the efficacy of something else, right?
On the contrary your argument for the use of blood transfusions lies in that they have saved many lives and yet we have no way of knowing how many persons would have survived if they had requested or been given alternative treatment making any estimation you give for the the use of blood transfusions on the basis that 'they save lives', not only inaccurate but misleading.
So the onus is on you to suggest how many millions of these people would have lived anyway without the use of blood transfusions, and how many could have been saved by the methods that you apparently prefer [instead of blood transfusions], you need to show where and when such alternative methods were available along with the expertise to administer them, or how many MORE people could have been saved if there had been no blood transfusions at all and only the treatments you favour.
You are questioning the efficacy of blood transfusions so it is you who has to present some evidence that alternatives could have saved as many lives as blood transfusions indisputably have.
