When is blood still blood? When does a person continue to be a person?

[Srecko Sostar]

1) When does blood cease to be blood?
According to WT's interpretation blood stops, ceases being blood if it is divided into smaller portions, so-called fractions.
WT believes (according to some medical science research) that there are 4 major parts, components of which the blood consists. This are:

... four primary blood components—red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma. (source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008086)

WT teaches its believers that it is unacceptable (under threat of excommunication) to take blood and any of these 4 major blood components. But a personal decision of a JW member is permissible if accepts some of the fractions that can be obtained from this 4 major components.

 

2) When does a new human being, person (or animal creature) emerge? By conception or by birth? Can life come only from 2 sex cells (specialized cells) during fertilization?

Please note also that the Bible does not say that a woman conceives a piece of tissue. Instead, it states: “An able-bodied man has been conceived!” (Job 3:3) This too indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception. Yes, that is when human life begins. (source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009202)

In this case, WT stands for the position that only two cells (only two components as the primary, major components) forms, creates a new person. Man consists of several different types and sizes of tissues. Tissues forms organs. How much tissues and organs man should have that would be called a man? According to WT, man is a man, person if he consists of only two cells. It does not have to be composed of tissues and organs to be called a man. Have to be only 2 cells. Only two coupled cells are needed for the existence of one new person, the new man. Two cells in comparison to 4 major components in blood issue. Human body consists of more than 50,000 billion cells. In 1 liter of human blood there are about 4.5-5 x 10¹²  red cells. Interesting comparison?! 

Imagine! 4.5-5 x 10¹²  red cells are needed to make this part of the blood to be called "major, primary part of the blood". And such  part may not be used to treat a disease or operation for JW member, because it is called "holy, sacred". Blood is holy - red cells are holy - white cells are holy - plasma is holy - platelets are holy. Holy means forbidden in this case.   

On the other hand, only two connected, coupled cells are needed to be called sacred, holy, person, life.  Interestingly and controversial.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The human body has many organs .

Two that are not often thought of as actual organs are blood, and skin.

If you disassemble blood ...or skin ... into component parts, do they cease being blood ... or skin?

If you cut a liver into small one inch squares ... does it cease being  liver?

But MORE TO THE POINT .... Does God consider fractionated blood, made from whole blood .... still blood?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

If we cut an apple in 4 pieces, 4 parts, are this 4 still an apple?

If we cut this 4 pieces of apple in more 4 and have 8 pieces, are they still an apple?

If we putt all this 8 parts or whole apple in blender, result will be.....? What? :))))))) Drink for apple lover.

 

[Evacuated]

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Does God consider fractionated blood, made from whole blood .... still blood?

The answer to that is indeterminable so.............................. you must make your choice on the matter.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, Outta Here said:

The answer to that is indeterminable so.............................. you must make your choice on the matter. 

Using that logic, the answer to that is indeterminable so ........ you must make your choice on the matter. , and a good example is taking an unborn human baby, and aborting it by killing and cutting it into 13 separate parts ... is no longer human, or a baby.

Because it would then not be considered human, could you then make soup for yourself, or dog food for your dog from the parts?

Of course!

It is merely a matter of personal conscience. (sarcasm alert, for those in Rio Linda ...)

I am a self professed Barbarian, who would eat his enemies killed in combat ... and I know better than THAT!

The reason we have a Bible, and a Constitution, is so that the people disposed to evolve into Liberal Snowflakes are held in check, and NOT have as many choices on the matter as can be had.

[Space Merchant]

@James Thomas Rook Jr. But it is still human flesh if that was the case. You'd be amazed of the dark and cray stuff that is actually true in how people are butchered in this way.

That being said, I am not a fan of Snowflakes or Shills. Another reason as to why politics isn't my thing, let alone people like Tomi Lauren and a list of others.

 

But hen it comes to blood, it is risky, and it is deem gold standard to some even in the EU so it can be a matter of choice, as for my people, that isn't the case, it is pretty much avoid it like the plague for reasons alone.

 

On the other side of the spectrum you got the elderly folk who want to live forever or prolong their life, so they will gladly take the blood of the young without question, apparently.

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and a good example is taking an unborn human baby, and aborting it by killing and cutting it into 13 separate parts ... is no longer human, or a baby.

You make your choice....accept the consequence. No amount of bluster will blow that away.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Outta Here:

I agree whole heartedly with your premise that whatever we do, there will be consequences.

I was trying to reason out the will of God, based on sound reason and logic, as well as what insight we can get from the Bible on the Mind of God, and also follow along with the original thread question and premise, which was:

" When is blood still blood? When does a person continue to be a person? "

I do not perceive anything about my contribution to this thread as being any form of bluster.

[Anna]

I think it's kind of simple. The GB have decided they cannot be dogmatic and claim what God's thoughts are on fractions one way or other, so they have left it up to the peeps.

[JOHN BUTLER]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I think it's kind of simple. The GB have decided they cannot be dogmatic and claim what God's thoughts are on fractions one way or other, so they have left it up to the peeps.

Maybe the GB should do that on many things. 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I think it's kind of simple. The GB have decided they cannot be dogmatic and claim what God's thoughts are on fractions one way or other, so they have left it up to the peeps.

Apologize, but what does this mean,  The GB have decided they cannot be dogmatic and claim what God's thoughts are. They doing that all the time, open publications and you will see how they impute such thing to Jesus, for example, while explaining this or that doctrine. 

"They decided"?. Please when and how they DECIDED not to be dogmatic. Did they making public statement about own Dogmatism? Or JW members get this impression how GB are not dogmatic any more as they been before?   :))

[Evacuated]

13 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I do not perceive anything about my contribution to this thread as being any form of bluster.

Bluster is rarely self assessed.

The simple fact of the matter is: make your own decision, and stick to it. And accept the consequence.

Excercise your own conscience and let others excercise theirs. Anything designed to impinge on that freedom can only be......bluster.

PS. I mean "your" in a collective, not personal sense, rather than the rather archaic "one's". I could substitute "my" if the "your" offends or incites. ?