Many Miles

Yeah. That's why I said earlier that I believe in evolution! lol

I was really looking for a view from a casual observer. It means something to me.
I think they're trapped.
The question of fractions harvested knowingly and purposely from blood to take what we want is like asking God if it would have been okay for Adam to knowingly and purposely harvest what he wanted to eat from the tree of knowledge and throw the rest away without eating it. And what response do you think that would have evoked from God? Who knows, maybe Adam didn't like peelings.

Yeah. That's why I said earlier that I believe in evolution! lol

I want to understand what you're saying.
When it comes to what is expected of Christians:
1) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by provisions found in Mosaic law?
2) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by requirements predating Mosaic law?
3) Or, When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by something else that's different than either of those two things?

My apology. What I wrote was not intended as condescension. I do appreciate and respect your responses. You are honest.

Here is what the society teaches about the "three things" you alluded to:
"When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref United in Worship book, underlining added)

Of course the who blood policy of the society stands squarely on Mosaic law. Only, the society says that's not the case.

How can you realize something you've never personally known of? You must have some idea in your mind of how often an occurrence. You characterized it as "occasional". What is that supposed to mean? 

That's a nice opinion. But it fails the test.
Of the substance of blood, nothing whatsoever records God having humans treat blood as a sacred substance until Mosaic Law. Pre-flood humans were not required to treat blood as a sacred substance. Post-flood, humans were still not required to treat the substance of blood as sacred.
I think you conflate the value God attributes to life with the substance of blood. Everything you say I find agreement in biblical text in relation to life. But regarding the substance of blood, I see none of it until the time of Mosaic Law.
The thing about not boiling a baby its mother's milk? I totally get that. But this thing about the substance of blood? You conflate.

Bartholin's opinion was based a premise that transfusing blood is equivalent to eating blood. For more than a century that notion has been known to be false.
If you're going to place confidence an notions from the 17th century then maybe we need to re-start witch swimming to know who's innocent and who's guilty.
I can understand why Bartholin held the opinion he held. But I can't understand why anyone in the 21st century would hold that eating blood is equivalent to transfusing blood. It's just false. Plain false. Transfused blood works as tissue, not nutrition.
I'm sure that's reassuring to family who've lost loved ones for nothing more than bad teaching. Worse, for known false teaching.
 
My primary concern is for individuals who devotedly follow what the society teaches on the subject simply because they've been convinced to trust and obey whatever it says.

I agree. But you characterized the occurrence as "occasional". How many times need I ask to get an answer of what you mean by that? If you can't quantify it then how to do characterize it as you have? So what does your characterization mean? 
Fight? Not hardly. I don't care a wit one way or another. I'm just asking a legit question. If you don't want to answer then just don't answer.

When reading for pleasure my interests tend to be history and biographical. I like fiction on the big screen, especially science fiction. But fiction books were just never a thing for me.
If I'm not reading for pleasure the analytical part of me comes out. I work to keep it at bay. But sometimes I open my mouth, or keyboard the submit reply button without realizing I might be ruining someone's day for no reason.
I don't know much about your written works, but it sounds like you have fun with it. By itself that's reason enough to keep at it. Ignore people like me.

I do have a lot of fun with it. I compare myself to a painter, a favorite safe hobby for a Witness. (painting, not writing, and the object painted is likely to be a boat) He or she paints for enjoyment. Thereafter, he doesn’t tuck paintings in the closet but puts them in some gallery. If he finds that some like them, so much the better. If they buy them, even more so much the better. But he would paint regardless of reception. He benefits from naysayers too, and may or may not incorporate their input into subsequent works.
I write to be creative, to research, to tell stories, to do memoirs. Steve Jobs confided to his biographer he wanted his story told so his kids would understand him better. I don’t primarily consider myself an apologist, though I can see why other people might. It is just that I am a Witness and everyone writes about what they know. Mostly, I am just a communicator who gots to communicate.
That said, to the extent I am an apologist, I go places I have never seen any Witness go. The Witness works that I have seen mostly confine themselves to ‘safe’ Witness topics like bashing holidays or blood transfusions. If they do go into matters of controversy, they mostly repackage what they’ve read in the Watchtower. For me, Chrysiddes remarks (under his pen name Ivor E. Tower) about ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ is satisfying:  “Tom shows a remarkable breadth of knowledge and reading too – he has by no means exclusively studied Watch Tower publications.”
To the extent I have a goal, it is to show how a modern Witness copes with the times. Another goal is not to be dull. As an example of going somewhere I’ve never seen a Witness go, ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ includes a detailed description of my meeting with the elders, following up on prior counsel not to engage with ‘apostates’ and unsure as to whether I do or not, but if so, to readjust. I mean, I had a book (which I later removed) on my blog page entitled TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ A little difficult for me to say, ‘Don’t know nothin bout no apostates here.’ I don’t advertise, but word gets around.
Probably, every ‘apostate’ book contains a meeting with the elders, many of them framed as ‘shootout at the OK Corral.’ I don’t know for sure, having never read one. Everyone’s got a story to tell, and mine is as good as theirs. But I’ve never seen an account of a meeting with elders from a loyal congregation member. If Witnesses are known as ‘insular,’ I strive to be open. I frame this meeting in the good light I think it should be framed in, as an example of shepherding, even when a given ‘sheep’ might find it overbearing. Rather than take any shots at anyone, I present the elders much as Pudgy has, as honorable men doing their best to do the right thing. I’m on good terms with every one of them, as well as the congregation at large. 
I even deal with charges opponents make against them: 
“Are the brothers “brainwashed”—the ones who counseled me about a matter that they do not understand themselves from a fleshly point of view, which is the only point of view of concern to the greater world? It’s such a loaded word. Who isn’t brainwashed today in some respect?
“Follow the flag and get your head blown off in consequence; only some of your countrymen will think your death noble—everyone else in the world will consider your death in vain. It doesn’t take some brainwashing to buy into that? Follow unquestioningly the overall goals of this system to get a good education so that you may get a good job—not a tad of brainwashing there that such is the path to happiness? When my wife worked as a nurse with the geriatric community, she said a quite common thing was for bewildered elderly persons to look around them in their waning years, as though to say, “Is this all there is?” These were not “losers” in life, for the most part. These were people who had enjoyed careers and loving families. But there was an aching emptiness at the end for many of them, a certain vague but overpowering sense of betrayal by life. Is it not the result of being brainwashed by mainstream thinking?”
So, yes, I write for enjoyment. Yes, I am pleased that my works trickle off the shelf. But they should be New York Times bestsellers.
Unnecessary advice. You are one of the viewers, even as you do paintings yourself. I’m content if you don’t throw that many tomatoes.

Lot of truth in that comment. A lot!

When I say a presentation looks like an apologetic work it's not a disparagement. There's nothing wrong with apologetic presentations. What I mean by "apologetic work" is a presentation that's written to protect a particular point of view.
What you wrote about problems related to donor blood and its availability and efficacy for transfusion medicine is not necessarily false, but it may lead to a false impression. Here's an example of what I mean:
You have two patients. Both patients are otherwise healthy young adults. But they have just suffered horrendous trauma and are hemorrhaging blood at an alarming rate. Each is bleeding out internally so fast that both will die before the underlying reason(s) for hemorrhage can be found, let alone remedied. Their Hb levels are lower than 2.0 g/dL. What to do? The doctors need more time. One thing can give them that time. Transfusion of volume expander and red cells. This will buy time to find and attempt to repair underlying cause(s) of hemorrhage, if that's possible.
All the problems you pointed out remain. But the simple fact is that if one of those patients accepts red cell transfusion and one declines, then there's a near 100% probability that one of those patients will die.
When it comes to subjects like this, any and all problems deserve attention and discussion, but if medical outcome is the critical factor then that factor can't be ignored as though it doesn't matter. So, for instance, the patient who accepted red cells and lived, maybe he contracts some disease or condition the result of that choice. But he's alive to deal with it.
If you want to write about difficulties of medical use of blood then do that. If you want to write about religious aspects of medical use of blood then do that. But those two things have nothing to do with one another. If religiously taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why religiously. If medically taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why medically. Sweeping statements about problems of using blood can easily mislead.
Apologetic works are written to protect (defend) a particular point of view. I prefer works that are written to share information and let people make of what they will. 
But, again, there is nothing inherently wrong with apologetic works.

When I say a presentation looks like an apologetic work it's not a disparagement. There's nothing wrong with apologetic presentations. What I mean by "apologetic work" is a presentation that's written to protect a particular point of view.
What you wrote about problems related to donor blood and its availability and efficacy for transfusion medicine is not necessarily false, but it may lead to a false impression. Here's an example of what I mean:
You have two patients. Both patients are otherwise healthy young adults. But they have just suffered horrendous trauma and are hemorrhaging blood at an alarming rate. Each is bleeding out internally so fast that both will die before the underlying reason(s) for hemorrhage can be found, let alone remedied. Their Hb levels are lower than 2.0 g/dL. What to do? The doctors need more time. One thing can give them that time. Transfusion of volume expander and red cells. This will buy time to find and attempt to repair underlying cause(s) of hemorrhage, if that's possible.
All the problems you pointed out remain. But the simple fact is that if one of those patients accepts red cell transfusion and one declines, then there's a near 100% probability that one of those patients will die.
When it comes to subjects like this, any and all problems deserve attention and discussion, but if medical outcome is the critical factor then that factor can't be ignored as though it doesn't matter. So, for instance, the patient who accepted red cells and lived, maybe he contracts some disease or condition the result of that choice. But he's alive to deal with it.
If you want to write about difficulties of medical use of blood then do that. If you want to write about religious aspects of medical use of blood then do that. But those two things have nothing to do with one another. If religiously taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why religiously. If medically taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why medically. Sweeping statements about problems of using blood can easily mislead.
Apologetic works are written to protect (defend) a particular point of view. I prefer works that are written to share information and let people make of what they will. 
But, again, there is nothing inherently wrong with apologetic works.

Evading the question, methinks.

I understand what you mean now.
Newspapers, for the most part, write to sell rather than write to educate. I don't really pay much attention to them, except to get a general idea of what's going on in the world. That's probably why I didn't pick up on the nuance you pointed out to me. Thanks.

Hey. I was just confessing!

I believe in evolution.
I know this will stagger the faith of some participants here. But I just have to say it.
Evidence:
This discussion started by asking the question "How many here have ever held an MCP party card to look it over and see what it is?"
Watching the subsequent path of this discussion has made me a believer. Oh, and we even have a talking beaver chiming in from time to time!
 

I understand what you mean now.
Newspapers, for the most part, write to sell rather than write to educate. I don't really pay much attention to them, except to get a general idea of what's going on in the world. That's probably why I didn't pick up on the nuance you pointed out to me. Thanks.

First off, blood transfusions are no panacea, which you realize of course. When it comes to "blood transfusions", all sorts of products are rendered from donor whole blood for transfusion. No products rendered from blood for transfusion are a panacea, and all of them have risks and benefits.
Now, as for the usage of "life saving", it's common usage for a wide array of therapeutics. It is false to say the term is never separated from blood transfusion. As a adjective the term is applied when context suggests it is applicable, no matter the noun it's describing.
If you're bleeding out and on the cusp of death for lack of blood, about the only "life saving" hope you have is transfusion of red cells. But you'll find the adjective "life saving" frequently used colloquially for many things, including emergency transports.

I believe in evolution.
I know this will stagger the faith of some participants here. But I just have to say it.
Evidence:
This discussion started by asking the question "How many here have ever held an MCP party card to look it over and see what it is?"
Watching the subsequent path of this discussion has made me a believer. Oh, and we even have a talking beaver chiming in from time to time!
 

Hey. I was just confessing!