Originally posted by galveston75You reckon more have died from blood transfusions than haven't? Surely what you mean is that, while there are risks attached to blood transfusions, they have saved the lives of countless millions of people and that the number that have died despite/due to blood transfusions is tiny compared to those for whom it has averted death?
The point here is this. More have died from transfusions then haven't as far as JW's and I'm all ears if anyone can prove differently.
Originally posted by FMFI don't rekon I said that did I? Nope. What did I say that you seem to ignor?
You reckon more have died from blood transfusions than haven't? Surely what you mean is that, while there are risks attached to blood transfusions, they have saved the lives of countless millions of people and that the number that have died despite/due to blood transfusions is tiny compared to those for whom it has averted death?
Originally posted by galveston75You said "The point here is this. More have died from transfusions then haven't..."
I don't rekon I said that did I? Nope. What did I say that you seem to ignor?
Perhaps you can explain?
The people saved by blood transfusions outnumbers, by far, those that died as a result of them. You accept this, yes or no?
How many "christian" religions allow their followers to smoke and expose their children to that? We don't as we view that as being unclean and a danger to all who live in that house and not showing respect for health and even life.
Why isn't anyone here condemning that unloving habit by other so called christians?
Originally posted by FMFYou are not reading my post as that has already been shown here in this thread.
You said "The point here is this. More have died from transfusions then haven't..."
Perhaps you can explain?
The people saved by blood transfusions outnumbers, by far, those that died as a result of them. You accept this, yes or no?
Originally posted by galveston75Blood transfusions have saved the lives of countless millions of children and their mothers. What is there to condemn about saving lives?
How many "christian" religions allow their followers to smoke and expose their children to that? We don't as we view that as being unclean and a danger to all who live in that house and not showing respect for health and even life.
Why isn't anyone here condemning that unloving habit by other so called christians?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat would you say is the ratio between lives saved and lives lost die to blood transfusions? And what would you say is the ratio between lives saved by blood transfusions and deaths - for whatever reasons - despite the administering of a blood transfusion (i.e. a death where the blood transfusion was unable to save them)?
I have already stated that I have no reason to doubt that it has, but then again it has also killed people as well. Is that clear enough for you?
Originally posted by galveston75The number of people whose lives were saved by blood transfusions outnumbers, by far, the number who died as a result of blood transfusions. Do you accept this ~ yes or no?
God knows the dangers of humans even touching anothers blood and something that man has finally learned just in the last hundred years or so.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe phrase "meaningless in this context" is synonymous with "red herring" then for this topic which is about parents letting their children die, ostensibly to please/not displease their personal God figure, for the want of treatment that could have saved their lives. [see the OP]
...my objection is not whether it is safe or not, but based on a religious principle (abstain from blood) and philosophical (the right of self determination) , safety of procedure is meaningless in this context.