15 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes its exactly the point, we do not have any issues with it, the matter for us is
But that's not the issue that's been raised is it?
resolved, its the noobs anbd zoobs of this world that have issues , not us! shall we cite
the number of persons who have died as a direct consequence of the 'safe', practice of
intravenously injecting blood, shall we? what do you reckon, ten thousand, one
hundred thousand? has our eminent and resident surgeon considered any alternatives,
other than his one dimensional and quite frankly prejudiced approach, perhaps you
would like to name some yourself? can you guarantee that blood is a safe product, can
you? No you cannot that is why, he is talking pants and the worse aspect about it is the
projection of his ignorance as if there were no alternatives, when there are plenty
although he fails to mention even one, shameful closed minded approach. The battle
against ignorance continues!
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe issue that has been raised is this - You make out that the reason for JW's objection to blood transfusions is because of safety issues, but that's disingenuous, even if allogeneic whole blood was made 100% safe you would still refuse transfusions wouldn't you?
yes its exactly the point, we do not have any issues with it, the matter for us is
resolved, its the noobs anbd zoobs of this world that have issues , not us! shall we cite
the number of persons who have died as a direct consequence of the 'safe', practice of
intravenously injecting blood, shall we? what do you reckon, ten thousand, one
hun ...[text shortened]... hen there are plenty
although he fails to mention even one, shameful closed minded approach.
The answer is yes, so the safety issue is a red herring. You don't partake blood because you believe god instructed you not too.
15 Dec 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobsigh, we do not take blood because
The issue that has been raised is this - You make out that the reason for JW's objection to blood transfusions is because of safety issues, but that's disingenuous, even if allogeneic whole blood was made 100% safe you would still refuse transfusions wouldn't you?
The answer is yes, so the safety issue is a red herring. You don't partake blood because you believe god instructed you not too.
1. Our religious beliefs
2. Our right of self determination
3. One cannot guarantee that a transfusion is 100% safe
4. There are now many alternative forms of medical treatment that do not necessitate
a blood transfusion, including such operations as open heart surgery!
paramount to all of this is our religious beliefs, but it is not the only reason.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've just made the point with number 1, you don't take blood because of scripture every other answer is irrelevant. Even if blood could be made 100% safe for transfusions you would still not use it because of answer 'number 1'. So your harking on about safety, which of course is an issue, matters not.
sigh, we do not take blood because
1. Our religious beliefs
2. Our right of self determination
3. One cannot guarantee that a transfusion is 100% safe
4. There are now many alternative forms of medical treatment that do not necessitate
a blood transfusion, including such operations as open heart surgery!
paramount to all of this is our religious beliefs, but it is not the only reason.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes its a religious belief, but its not the only reason. safety is a concern and as you
You've just made the point with number 1, you don't take blood because of scripture every other answer is irrelevant. Even if blood could be made 100% safe for transfusions you would still not use it because of answer 'number 1'. So your harking on about safety, which of course is an issue, matters not.
cannot guarantee a transfusions success, can you? it will remain a significant factor!
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut as i've said and has been pointed out by LemonJello, even if blood could be made 100% safe for transfusions you would still refuse because the Bible says 'abstain from blood'.
yes its a religious belief, but its not the only reason. safety is a concern and as you
cannot guarantee a transfusions success, can you? it will remain a significant factor!
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes it does and yes it is, but he has also tried to make out that it has nothing to do with
But as i've said and has been pointed out by LemonJello, even if blood could be made 100% safe for transfusions you would still refuse because the Bible says 'abstain from blood'.
whether there are safety concerns or not, this is simply not true regardless of any
hypothetical scenario you wish to utilise to frame the argument, we are dealing with
realities, not a hypothesis. You cannot guarantee the safety of a transfusion and it
remains a concern.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf the Watchtower Society change their view on this, you would follow along
yes it does and yes it is, but he has also tried to make out that it has nothing to do with
whether there are safety concerns or not, this is simply not true regardless of any
hypothetical scenario you wish to utilise to frame the argument, we are dealing with
realities, not a hypothesis. You cannot guarantee the safety of a transfusion and it
remains a concern.
like a little puppy dog.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by galveston75How many people can you prove have been resurrected?
And yes it might, But God assures a resurrection to life again. This life is only temporary to us all. How we obey God in this life and remain fathfull to him is how we will be judged.
If Jesus had been fearful of death and not have followed the will of his Father as we do about his command to keep free from blood, we would have no hope of a future.
...[text shortened]... th in God and his promise of this then I feel sorry for you and the fear of death that you have.
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat in the world does self determination have to do with what I wrote? Can you not read? I am not saying anything that would negate the idea that you are entitled to autonomy in this domain (though even this issue is not as straightforward as you may think). I am saying that you are an ignorant, fundamentalist idiot on this issue. Your retorts are frankly just bizarre. Even if 1 in 100 or 1 in 6000 transfusions were problematic and you knew this, you would be a fundamentalist idiot to deny a transfusion to yourself or anyone else that needs a successful transfusion, owing just to some literalist view of some ancient doctrine. I mean, good grief, that is just frickin' common sense. Again, the reason why even basic common sense does not sway you here is that you are a fundemantalist on this issue. I have already explained to galveston what that means in a prior post. Please read it if you are interested.
Do we have the right of self determination, yes?, well shut up a yo face! clearly the only shameful aspect about this thread is your ignorance,
"Approximately 1 in 100 transfusions are accompanied by fever, chills, or urticaria
[hives]. . . . Approximately 1 in 6,000 red cell transfusions results in a hemolytic
transfusion reaction. This is ...[text shortened]... ven death."—National Institutes of
Health (NIH) conference, 1988.
suck it up Doctor Spok!
15 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere you go again, pretending like your view hinges on the medical efficacy of blood transfusions. You are a disingenuous piece. Everyone already knows that even if blood transfusions were to be perfectly safe, you would still take issue with them. And this post also serves again to point out your selective, cherry-picked understanding of the medical evidence. How many lives have been saved or prolonged through transfusion? How safe is transfusion according to up-to-date practices? Did you ever think to augment your selective understanding of the procedure with these types of basic inquiries?
yes its exactly the point, we do not have any issues with it, the matter for us is
resolved, its the noobs anbd zoobs of this world that have issues , not us! shall we cite
the number of persons who have died as a direct consequence of the 'safe', practice of
intravenously injecting blood, shall we? what do you reckon, ten thousand, one
hun ...[text shortened]... mention even one, shameful closed minded approach. The battle
against ignorance continues!
No, we cannot guarantee that blood is a safe product. What's your point? Again, you wouldn't care even if it were. It wouldn't change your fundamentalist stance. And, would you mind telling us all how many practices and activities in your life are perfectly safe and immune from mishap? How about you start trying to be consistent for once?
15 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have pretended nothing, its not my fault you are scandalously ignorant of our stance
There you go again, pretending like your view hinges on the medical efficacy of blood transfusions. You are a disingenuous piece. Everyone already knows that even if blood transfusions were to be perfectly safe, you would still take issue with them. And this post also serves again to point out your selective, cherry-picked understanding of the medical perfectly safe and immune from mishap? How about you start trying to be consistent for once?
and the reasons (plural) why we refuse whole blood transfusion, is it? You have made
for yourself a castle made of sand, stating that the only real reason we refuse blood
transfusion is religious, when its NOT the only reason, consider yourself now educated
a little more on the matter! Ah the old if it kills one hundred thousand but saves a
million its justifiable, been there with bbarr and canrau , Melony yellow, its not our
issue, the matter is resolved for us, whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant, its
settled as far as we are concerned and as the Apostle stated when he delivered the
principle to abstain from blood, good health to you!
15 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindswhat a sad case, our stance is not based upon the watchtower society (which is a
If the Watchtower Society change their view on this, you would follow along
like a little puppy dog.
corporate entity used for the distribution of biblical literature) but on Gods word the
Bible. The apostle makes it rather clear in the book of acts, chapter fifteen, ABSTAIN
from blood. You of course are free to both interpret and adopt or relegate that
principle as you see fit within the dictates of your own conscious even as we are.