XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: sam@spade.invalid   
      
   James wrote:   
   > On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 21:28:19 -0700, Samuel Spade  wrote:   
   >   
   > >James wrote:   
   > >> On Sun, 05 Oct 2025 20:33:39 -0700, Samuel Spade    
   wrote:   
   > >> >James wrote:   
   > >> >> On Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:05:04 -0700, Samuel Spade    
   wrote:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> >James wrote:   
   > >   
   > >(snippage clippage)   
   > >   
   > >> >> >> Thus, besides drinking blood, Christians are to "refrain" from   
   blood,   
   > >> >> >> such as getting a blood transfusion, etc.   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >Would you refuse a blood transfusion if it were the only way to save   
   > >> >> >your life?   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> No. Ask any JW and you would get the same answer. We believe in   
   > >> >> following God's word over anything else.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >Sounds like you meant Yes, you would refuse the transfusion.   
   > >>   
   > >> Thanks for the correction. Usually it is said the other way.   
   > >> Yes, I would refuse it, but ask for volume expanders if that would   
   > >> help, etc.   
   > >   
   > >I've never heard of volume expanders.   
   >   
   > If you lost a lot of blood, and you don't want a blood transfusion,   
   > which you can pick up various diseases, and which many people today   
   > want bloodless surgeries because of the above, they can get volume   
   > expanders such as a saline solution.   
      
   So you're saying salt water works just as well as blood?   
      
      
   > >> If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, could you then shoot it   
   > >> in your veins? That would still be 'drinking' the alcohol. The doctor   
   > >> wouldn't be happy with you.   
   > >   
   > >Poor analogy.  Alcohol is an intoxicant no matter where you stick it.   
   > >Transfused blood has a much different effect than drinking it.   
   > >   
   >   
   > Its not the effect that's important, it's 'eating' it intravenously   
   > which bypasses your doctor's statement to abstain from alcohol.   
   >   
   > >A better example would be: it's really bad to drink isopropyl alcohol,   
   > >but applied to your skin it can prevent infection and save your life.   
   > >Should you "abstain" from isopropyl alcohol?   
   >   
   > Not at all, I don't even abstain from beer and other alcoholic drinks.   
   > It is blood that we abstain from.   
      
   You missed the point.  Isopropyl alcohol means rubbing alcohol.  You   
   don't drink it, 'mkay?  It will kill you.  It also kills parasites and   
   infectious stuff on your skin.   
      
   It's safe to eat blood, properly cooked (and some people actually do!).   
   Abstinence is for religious, not health reasons.  (Realisticly, you're   
   never going to get your meat completely blood-free anyway.)  People get   
   transfusions, on medical advice, exactly for health reasons.  It saves   
   lives.  You can't arm-wave that away.   
      
      
   > >Does God have some purpose for ordering abstinence from transfusions?   
   >   
   > God considers our blood as life. That's what the Bible says.   
      
   Blood is blood.  Life is life.  They aren't equivalent or identical.   
   Even the Bible can understand that.   
      
   > >With drinking blood, or eating shellfish or pork, you could see some   
   > >potential connection to health risks that people were aware of even in   
   > >the bronze age.  But what does it accomplish to ban transfusions?   
   >   
   > To obey your Creator. If you worked, Did you obey your boss at work?   
   > Why? Because you benefit by keeping your job. It's similar with God.   
   > God promises everlasting life on a paradise earth, if we obey our   
   > 'boss', God.   
      
   So you admit it's not for health reasons that you refuse transfusions.   
   It's purely religious.  That is the answer I was looking for, thanks for   
   explaining.   
      
      
   > >Especially since dying from lack of transfusion is quite unhealthy.   
   >   
   > There is also dying from a blood transfusion, like with HIV.   
   >   
   > Notice some of the things this AI dug up about blood transfusions:   
   >   
   > "AI Overview   
   > HIV and Blood Transfusions   
   > Diseases and complications that can arise from blood transfusions   
   > include infectious diseases, such as bacterial infections, viral   
   > infections (like HIV, hepatitis), parasitic diseases (like malaria),   
   > and prion diseases (like vCJD), though these are rare due to rigorous   
   > screening and testing. Non-infectious complications include hemolytic   
   > transfusion reactions, which are immune responses to the transfused   
   > blood, and circulatory overload (TACO) from receiving too much fluid,   
   > as well as metabolic disturbances from the transfused blood."   
   >   
   > That is why many non-JW's won't take blood transfusions. JW's actually   
   > paved the way for bloodless surgeries.   
      
   There are risks from drinking water, or walking across the street. Those   
   are not compelling reasons to dehydrate or stay out all night. The   
   upside outweighs the downside.  Even you seem to realize that.   
      
   Blood is screened for HIV and hepatitis.  You do realize that, right?   
   The risk is very low.   
      
   (snip tangential misdirection about christians and lions)   
      
      
   > >> >This is where most people would draw a moral line in the snow.  Do you   
   > >> >have a right to condemn a child to death who may not even understand the   
   > >> >situation?  Clearly it's not a legal right, and doctors often seek court   
   > >> >injunctions to administer transfusions to JW children over parents'   
   > >> >objections.   
   > >>   
   > >> What about wicked parents who have small children?   
   > >   
   > >You mean, wicked parents who let their kids have transfusions?  They   
   > >usually are overjoyed and relieved with the outcome.   
   >   
   > Even if the child gets the common hepatitis, or even HIV?   
   >   
   > Many times transfusions aren't even necessary. A doctor can get sloppy   
   > with surgeries, knowing there is blood handy. Because of the risks,   
   > many doctors today limit the amount of transfusions. They say it is   
   > safer. Here he (it) is again, AI.   
      
   Again, medical doctors know more about transfusions than AI, the bible,   
   and your average god-on-the-street, all put together.  You want to make   
   medical decisions for yourself based on the Bible or other iron-age   
   superstition, go for it, but don't drag children into it.   
      
   Worse, the doctrine makes out Jehovah as an irrational ego-driven guy,   
   made in some ancient warlord's own image.   
      
   Can you guess why he burdened JWs with arbitrary child-killing rules?   
   Come on now, James.  In the back of your mind, you know the real   
   explanation.   
      
      
   > "AI Overview   
   > Doctors practicing transfusion-free medicine and surgery use   
   > strategies to minimize or avoid blood transfusions, treating patients   
   > with religious objections or for medical reasons by employing   
   > techniques like minimizing blood loss, improving red blood cell   
   > production, and using alternative blood salvage and hemodilution   
   > methods. This comprehensive approach, also known as patient blood   
   > management, involves careful planning, advanced surgical tools,   
   > medications to increase blood cell production, and techniques to   
   > monitor patients closely to ensure positive health outcomes without   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)