JW Lawyer on Disfellowshipping and Shunning

[Anna]

23 hours ago, JW Insider said:

On 8/5/2019 at 12:43 PM, Anna said:

Both WT you quoted are thankfully rather dated. 

Herd of the Governing Body? He recommended that we go back and read "Angels & Women," a very interesting book from the 1870s/1920s that he found in the Bethel Library.

Yes indeed, lol. And we also know of another quote about 'cows in heat' (from an old publication) that was quoted recently by a member of Bethel . I guess I am just hoping that in this case, the case under discussion, it IS dated....but then again I would have hoped the same for the cows. That was rather surprising, and shocking!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

That was rather surprising, and shocking!

... and does absolutely NOTHING for the Society's  Credibility, which is in painfully short supply this past 50 years.

[Matthew9969]

You can skip straight to 7:43.

[Anna]

On 8/5/2019 at 2:37 PM, JW Insider said:

On 8/5/2019 at 12:43 PM, Anna said:

the WT examples were about  processing blood, therefor misusing it.

The only type of blood that we are "conscientiously" allowed to use without consequence is processed blood, fractions processed from whole blood. For human blood, processing is the only way NOT to misuse it.

I know, sounds like a paradox. But what I meant by the term processing was not the taking it apart, but using whole blood and putting it into something else instead of pouring it out onto the ground. Of course if you are centrifuging blood to separate it into fractions, you are not pouring it onto the ground either. So I guess that's where it becomes a conscience matter... because you are not doing the processing, but you are just accepting the finished product, which are the fractions. Just like when you are paying taxes, you are not concerned with what this money is ultimately being used for (weapons for example). Of course the same could be said about using whole blood as an ingredient in a product, you are not the one that made the product, and with regard to fertilizer, you would actually be putting it back into the ground!

edit:

P.S. There is no doubt in my mind, that ultimately, the revised stance on blood fractions, i.e. them being a matter of conscience, derived from the recognition that many life extending medical treatments, and vaccinations involve the manipulation of blood in some way.

[JW Insider]

42 minutes ago, Anna said:

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking.

I really didn't notice anything like that. So there's nothing to worry about or defend.

44 minutes ago, Anna said:

Am I understanding it right?

Yes. You understood me. Thanks for the explanation. I'm not worried about whether anyone agrees, but I'm glad you understand.

15 minutes ago, Anna said:

I know, sounds like a paradox.

Yes. You are seeing the issues. The article that said no blood transfusions for pets was written at a time when we were still being told that our conscience doesn't allow certain fractions, which our consciences are now allowed to allow. So where does this leave our pets? Can we get a medical therapy for a dog that allows hemoglobin as long as it is not in the form of full red blood cells, but just the portions of that cell from which someone squished out the hemoglobin? And if we do allow it, can we still associate with the dog, if we are disfellowshipped for giving unsanctioned blood to our pets? 😉

[Anna]

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And if we do allow it, can we still associate with the dog, if we are disfellowshipped for giving unsanctioned blood to our pets?

More like will the dog's conscience allow him to associate with US

[Srecko Sostar]

34 minutes ago, Anna said:

I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.

both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are,

If you allow me to say, I see a little problem here. WT Society looking with happiness when 7 - 17 years old children making "informed decision" to be baptized.

Also, Organization are proud when Court making decision to allow minor children to make own "informed decision" on medical treatment (refuse blood).

This two sort of examples making issue more complicated. Because, will you allow or not allow - that children making own "informed decisions"? And should that be general rule for all children? Or  you put final decision on adult (Judicial Committee .... Worldly  Court) does  children  enough "mature" to make own "informed decision" or not? Etc.  

 

35 minutes ago, Anna said:

So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision,

Here i see some theological issue. If God who see things in advance not gave clear command to his people about blood and say - do not eat, do not drink, do not transfuse blood, how is possible that people interpret blood ban as ban about blood transfusion or some other medical treatment that will come in the future?

If we try to explain how his people (or people in general) didn't know nothing  about transfusion, so God didn't want to made his command  unclear or incomprehensible to them, than i see another proof how GB explanation about need to obey their command and instructions despite the fact how such "Life Saving" instructions are not reasonable or understandable from "human standpoint" is just human interpretations and manipulation. 

If God not want to burden people more than it is needed, and he was done that with clear and sound commandants, readable in Law - ......

Why would He allow and be agreeable, with GB ideas .... who  giving obscure and questionable instructions, to His people about way of worshiping?    

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

do not eat, do not drink, do not transfuse blood, how is possible that people interpret blood ban as ban about blood transfusion or some other medical treatment that will come in the future

I am sure you've heard the illustration using alcohol. If the doc tells us do not drink alcohol, would he have to be specific and say do not transfuse it into your veins either?

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This two sort of examples making issue more complicated. Because, will you allow or not allow - that children making own "informed decisions"? And should that be general rule for all children? Or  you put final decision on adult (Judicial Committee .... Worldly  Court) does  children  enough "mature" to make own "informed decision" or not?

Yes, I agree, it gets very complicated...I think what JWI and I were talking about is babies and very small children with similar decision making capabilities as a dog (sorry if it sounds weird . I did read somewhere though that a dog's intelligence is comparable to a 3 year old child) but also those who might be older but considered 'immature' by worldly courts.

[Anna]

14 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

While the blood is led out in the slaughter house, no meat is completely free of blood byproduct in a cellular level.

I don't think anyone was saying this was an issue.

Also, if you are insinuating that the command on blood should be obeyed because of health benefits, then you are missing the point entirely.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

BTK46 :

I will give it a try, to summarize the dialect correctly .....

Your predilection for irrelevancy seems to have a New York, probably Eastern New Jersey flavor, tinged with a bit of Scottish Brogue, and a bouquet of Midwestern, but obviously fake woody attempt at John Waynism.

The Hollywood version, not the Texas version.

There is an overview of pronounced bluster that cannot be disguised, but it is clear you are not even trying, so that bespeaks a tinge of Masachusettsism, faintly reminiscent of Harvard Law School, or a very good imitation thereof. From the bouquet and aroma it hints of association with Warwick New York Lawyers.

Did I get that dialect right?

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

What?

Really?

Dialog?

........ never mind.

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Interesting. I guess everyone here is vegetarian.

I abstain from blood in every way possible but, like many of us have stated in the past, it's not possible to get every bit of blood out of slaughtered meat. It's a matter of doing what we can within reason. You don't have to be a vegetarian to abstain from blood. You seem to agree with this point, and I agree with most of the points you made here, too.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Any meat still contains a small amount of blood by product (Fraction). The red liquid juice is not blood. That’s a misconception because it is red. It’s a myoglobin protein. That helps oxygen storage.

Ironically, it can be compared to the hemoglobin in blood.

I absolutely agree that the red liquid juice is the protein called myoglobin which is "distantly" related to hemoglobin, as it handles the same purpose in muscle tissue (oxygenation) that hemoglobin handles for many parts of the body by carrying oxygen through the bloodstream.

The only thing you say here, which I think could be misleading is when you say that "Any meat still contains a small amount of blood by product (Fraction)." In actuality, just as was pointed out in previous conversations, any meat still contains a small amount of whole blood, not so much any "fractionated" blood. By the way, your wording here is almost the precise wording that Allen Smith had used when I pointed this out, right down to the misspelling of "by product" followed by the word "Fraction." Coincidentally, my own response in the previous conversation used the word "ironically" too, but I had chosen the word for less serious reasons, because I was talking about how hemoglobin carries oxygen and iron, too. Deja vu!

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

While the blood is led out in the slaughter house, no meat is completely free of blood byproduct in a cellular level.

Therefore, when scripture states let the blood spill out, it’s not saying to get your wash rag and scrub the carcass. You can bleach it out, and still have micro blood product left over.

I think everyone would agree with that, as stated above.

The rest of your points are more related to health considerations and the medical dangers of blood transfusions, including the historical development of understanding dangers, limitations, and transfusing blood types (which were figured out by 1901). This is all interesting information but likely has very little to do with the reasons that Christians were told to abstain from blood in Acts 17, etc.

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Then fraction blood was introduced to give the recipient the choice to choose their conscience instead of some delusional ideology about it being about monetary or lawsuits. If a person dies due to their conscience, then they made that choice.

I cannot claim that it was about money or lawsuits, but there are some historical indications about the timing of various statements the WTS made with respect to doctors, patient rights, our use of term "martyr," the JW Bulgaria blood transfusion announcements, medical articles for journal publication from M. Gene Smalley and J. Lowell Dixon, MD (Bethel Doctor). I have looked over these developments from 1989 to 1994 especially, and compared them to later discussions since 1998. Our "public" language about the topic became quite different in 1998, and updates came quickly between 1998 and 2000, which was the same year (rumored) that the number of attorneys at Bethel apparently doubled (no verification on this) and the same year that the Governing Body changed their roles and stepped away from their roles as WTS corporate directors (verified).

For anyone interested in a challenge from an obviously apostate source on the topic of changes to our blood policy, they can look at this page, written in the year 2000:

https://www.watchman.org/articles/jehovahs-witnesses/new-watchtower-blood-transfusion-policy/