Blood 02: What It Means to Abstain

1.0 DISMANTLING A CLEVERLY DISGUISED ARGUMENT 

1.1 Main Opposing Argument to be Addressed in this Section: 

To use from is not to abstain from 
JWs use from blood 
JWs do not abstain from blood 

Or to make it clearer and more in line with standard logical form: 

If P, Then Q 
P 
Therefore Q

If a JW uses from blood, then he is not abstaining from blood 
A JW uses from blood 
Therefore, the JW has not abstained from blood 

1.2 The Problem of the Opposer’s Argument from a Logical Perspective 

The chief fallacy of using the above argument to prove that JW’s do not abstain from blood lies in the unproven/conditional nature of its first premise: "To use from is not to abstain from," or “If a JW uses from blood, then he is not abstaining from blood.” The opposer is attempting to sneak in a “modus ponens” and pretend that his conclusion is automatically made sound because it is valid structurally. But as has already been discussed: for an argument to be SOUND, it must be both valid and TRUE. The problem, of course, is that a modus ponens can be perfectly valid, but does not have to be true in any way whatsoever. The “if, then” statement can be anything that one wants it to be, regardless of whether it is true or not. Additionally, and as with the case of the above argument, the “if, then” statement is not proven in a modus ponens—it is simply asserted, and the validity of the conclusion becomes dependent on the “if, then” premise purely as stated. 

Example 

A pig farting into the wind indicates Labor Day
A pig farts into the wind 
It is Labor Day 

or 

If a pig farts into the wind, then it is Labor Day 
A pig farts into the wind 
It is Labor Day 

The examples are not true or sound in any way whatsoever and the first premise/conditional statement is completely unproven; however, they are still perfectly valid structurally, because the conclusions are based on the premises solely as stated. 

The argument used by the opposer is in the exact same form as the farting pig argument. That in of itself should be quite telling. 

1.3 How Opposers Use “Abstain” 

The argument put forth is also in fact irrelevant, misapplied and misleading in of itself primarily because, as has been actually admitted to myself and to my partner, the argument is not being used in regards to what JWs ACTUALLY believe, but instead is being used in regards to what the opposer SAYS that the common person would believe. The phrase 'abstain from' is being used differently than the way JWs understand that phrase. The argument is thus guilty of equivocation and becomes a strawman. 

Our zealous opposer uses the word “abstain” in the most ridiculously strict sense that he can, as if it meant, “have nothing to do with blood—do not touch it, get near it, have it in you or use it for anything whatsoever. When you see blood, run away from it!” 

As a similar example: if a person was told while out on the ocean to 'abstain' from salt water, would this mean, “don't use it for anything! Don't swim in it, don’t touch it, don't even filter out the salt and drink the purified water”? Or, would the command simply mean, “don't drink the water with salt in it or take it into your body”? Which seems more reasonable and more appropriate for the context in which the command was given? 

The command to abstain from blood has never meant or been understood as meaning, as some opposers would like to think: "Look out. He's bleeding! Everyone run for the hills!" or 'Oh my goodness! That Dr. is carrying a test tube full of blood! He is not abstaining from blood!" Or "Oh no I can't eat that. You didn't drain every single drop of blood out of that animal!" If JWs taught that we must not have anything to do with blood then we could not even have a blood test. No JW could ever be a doctor or nurse or medical technician. If someone was bleeding profusely we would have to run the opposite way for fear we might come in contact with the blood. Not to mention if we ourselves were bleeding. What would we do then? We would even need to drain our blood from our bodies to 'abstain from blood'.

Reasonableness dictates that when we are told “abstain from blood” within the context of Acts, the Noachian Decree and the Mosaic Law, we do not take it to mean that we run from blood, drain all our blood, don’t touch blood, avoid all tests on it, etc etc…Reasonableness dictates that we do not view the command as meaning that we should always keep at least 5 feet away from any blood we see, as if we are going to be guilty if we touch it or even look at it wrong.

1.4 What Is Actually Taught by the Witnesses 

The statement in Acts is made in the context of the Bible. Thus, JWs teach that to KEEP on abstaining, as Acts says, means primarily to keep on doing the same thing that Noah did and that the Jews did, i.e., not EATING the blood, i.e., not taking it into our bodies for nourishment, and that blood should be either literally or figuratively “poured out on the ground” as a sign of “giving back” to Jehovah what is rightfully his rather than putting it back into use as blood. 

None of this necessarily implies that tests cannot be run on the blood or medical procedure cannot be conducted on it before it is poured out.

And so we see, if the opposing argument is used in accord with the teachings of JW’s, then it has been clearly refuted by all of the above. But if the argument is not in accord with the teachings of JWs then there is no need to refute it in the first place. Either way, the argument is fallacious.

1.5 Using from the Blood Supply? 

The point has also been brought up that the “Witnesses use from the blood supply,” therefore they use blood.

The above statement is a bit misleading however, because the phrase “use from the blood supply” can grammatically include the use of whole blood and major formed elements of blood—none of which are used by Witnesses. 

The term “minor fraction” however, more clearly defines what the Witnesses might be willing to accept, while at the same time excluding what they will not accept. 

Witnesses will not use blood as blood. Minor fractions are not necessarily considered to be blood, just as a single, general nut from a wheel is not necessarily considered to be a “car.” It depends on the conscience of the individual whether or not they view it as still having blood-ness about it. 

So instead of saying

"Witnesses use from the blood supply"

A more descriptive, less deceptive phrase would be: 

"Some Witnesses use minor fractions from the blood supply, which are not considered to still be blood by the Witness when used." 

1.6 Point/Counterpoint Summary 

Often times, the original words from the debate are difficult to improve upon. Therefore, I will present below the point/counterpoint written to the opposer by our dear ThirdWitness, without editing or modification. It makes for a wonderful summary of what has been discussed thus far.

Point: One who professes abstention from blood may not use blood or [any] derivative from blood and still accurately profess abstention from blood.

Counterpoint: Says who? Everyone uses blood everyday. It is a fact and we cannot escape the use of blood. To reflect the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses, it should be said as follows:

One who professes abstention from blood may not EAT/use blood AS FOOD and still accurately profess abstention from blood. 

Blood fractions are a different matter altogether since they cannot specifically be defined as blood.

Point: JWs permit the use of blood to derive fractions from it which they further permit for medicinal use.

Counterpoint: The use of blood fractions is a decision each individual JW must make.

Point: JWs do NOT abstain from blood.

Counterpoint: If we are defining the term 'abstain from blood' as defined in the Bible, then that is an untrue statement. If we are defining 'abstain from blood' as has been defined in the argument--'have nothing to do with blood whatsoever'--then that is an irrelevant statement.

Point: That is simple and unassailable logic for which no one should be required to present proof.

Counterpoint: If it is simple and unassailable logic then proof should be easily presented. You presented none. You have failed in your logical argument form. Your argument is thus rejected. 

2.0 REMOVING BLOOD FOR FRACTIONATION IS STEALING AND THOSE RECEIVING FRACTIONS ARE THIEVES!? 

2.1 Guilt by Extension? 

Point: 
“You are told to abstain from some personal property. Is paying someone else to steal and then use from this stolen property for your benefit a moral or ethical equivalent to stealing and using from the stolen property yourself?”

Of course I understand his argument being made about fractions derived from blood. JWs do not donate blood and JWs say blood should be poured out and not used for other purposes and yet doctors take blood donated by people and fraction it out and then give those fractions to some JWs, and give the blood to other persons. 

But as regards the opposer’s question (as will also be discussed two sections down), it should be noted that the “paying someone to steal” illustration has no resemblance to the issue of accepting minor fractions of blood. In the opposer’s argument, the illegal “offense” takes place at the moment the hired hand takes the “property.” Thus, the ALREADY hot property being accepted willingly by the employer is viewed as stealing by extension. With regards the blood issue however, the blood does not become “hot” the moment it is removed from the body or handled. The opposer is mixing up the order of events in his illustration for the purpose of deceiving his readers. To break this down into a more visual form, please notice the following flow outlines that I have put together: 

Opposer’s Non-Parallel Illustration: 

1. Man one hires man two to [steal a car] 
2. Man two steals a car (offense happens here, at the beginning) 
3. Man two becomes guilty of theft the moment he gets behind the wheel of the car and drives away. 
4. The car becomes “hot” property the moment man two gets behind the wheel and drives away. 
5. Man two gives the “hot” property to man one. 
6. Man one becomes guilty of knowingly taking hot property.

A Truly Parallel Illustration:

1. Man two buys a car from a dealer (nothing illegal about it) 
2. Man one needs a new nut for his own car’s wheel. 
3. Man one asks man two for a nut from his new car. 
4. Man two gives man one a nut from his new car. 
5. Afterwards, man two proceeds to intentionally smash his car into a group of pedestrians (offense happens here, at the end)

The Real Situation: 

1. Man one has in his possession various volumes of whole blood. 
1. Man two needs a certain type of minor fraction for specific health reasons. 
2. Man one fractionates some of his whole blood and offers the minor fractions to man two. 
3. Man two accepts the minor fractions. 
4. Afterwards, man one gives his leftover whole blood to man three (offense happens here). 

As regards the “Real” illustration above, we are not paying someone to give us blood (steal in the opposer’s analogy). Those who accept blood fractions are paying someone to give them blood fractions, which may legitimately be viewed as no longer retaining their identity as ‘blood’. It is not our place to tell medical technicians what to do with the blood after they fractionate it. 

Of course, JWs pay to receive blood fractions. The money they pay goes to medical technicians, doctors, and others to perform their jobs. But what the doctors and medical technicians choose to do with the blood after it is fractionated is not our concern. Let them do as they like with the blood. That is on them, not us. We cannot tell them they must pour it out on the ground anymore than we can tell the government not to spend our taxes on military weapons. 

If I am taxed by the government and the money is used to build military weapons does that mean I contributed to war efforts. I have no say so in what the government does with their money. My only obligation is to pay Caesar's things to Caesar. 

JWs, therefore, do not take what rightfully belongs to God. We do not 'steal' blood, even if doctors or others choose to later ‘steal’ it on their own. 

2.2 Precedent in Deuteronomy? 

JWs allow fractions derived from blood that may not have been poured out upon the ground into their bodies. Opposer’s view this as a contradiction and as hypocritical. 

But interestingly enough, the Israelites did something similar that many opposers today should also call hypocritical and contradictory.

Deut 14:21 “YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God."

The dead animal with undrained blood in it was good enough for the foreigner but not the Israelite? They hypocritically sold it to the foreigner to eat just so they could line their pocket with a few extra dollars? How hypocritical, right? They were not abstaining from blood. And yet, and yet, it was JEHOVAH'S LAW, not a manmade law of Israel. 

You see it was not up to Israelites to determine for foreigners that they should abstain from blood no more than it is up to us to determine that doctors should abstain from blood. If foreigners ate the blood that Israelites sold them, then that was on them. If doctors take donated blood and derive fractions from it, and do not pour the blood out upon the ground that is upon them. We can still take the derived fractions if we personally do not consider that taking in blood.

Jehovah and the Israelites who sold those animals did not consider themselves breaking the command to abstain from blood and neither should it be determined that those who take fractions derived from blood are breaking that command. 

The bottom line is that JWs do not 'steal' blood from God when they take proteins and other fractions found in blood. 

2.3 Doctors Nothing but Sinister Blood Thieves?

Point: 
“According to Watchtower theology, when a technician extracts blood not to dispose of but for purposes of using it up by giving it to others, are they stealing from God?" 

Here the opposer is asking us to judge the motives of the technician. He tries to make the point that blood belongs to God; but the medical technician steals the blood, takes fractions from the stolen blood, gives some of the fractions to one of JWs, and thus they have stolen property. 

But again it is a fallacy opposers have invented. 

Just because the technician takes the blood from the arm of a person does not mean he has stolen from God at that point in time. Technicians often do that and run tests on that blood. Once the tests are finished the blood is disposed of and is symbolically given back to God. 

Whether the medical personnel end up “stealing” it in the end or not is on them. They must decide what they will do with blood after fractionating or testing it. But we personally have no control over what they do with the blood after testing or fractionating. 

2.4 What is the Real Offense, Taking or Using? 

From the previous few sections, it should be fairly obvious to all readers that there is a fundamental difference in opinion concerning exactly what the offense is as regards the use of blood. Does the offense lie in the initial act of removing blood from the body? How about in simply running a test on it? Or, does the offense lie elsewhere? We shall examine this question below. 

Opposer’s Position: Taking blood out of the body for fractionation is stealing and those receiving fractions are stealing. 

JW Position: It is not the act of simply taking the blood out of a body or taking fractions that is 'stealing' from God. It is when the extracted blood (not necessarily minor fractions, as they can legitimately be considered not to be blood) is given to a person rather than being given back to God by pouring it out or disposing of it that it becomes 'stealing'. 

Our real position is exactly as the OnlyTrueGod site states:

"We must stay away from use of blood as blood. A failure to stay away from illicit blood may occur when a man makes some use of blood as blood, this because he did not destroy it in a way that results in the removal/isolation of (some) subcomponent(s)—but, as is true for some cases of blood abuse, stored it—when he removed blood from some soul's circulatory system in order that he might make some use of the blood as blood. Appreciating God's mind on the matter, Christians do not store up blood for it to be used again as blood" 

"We must not desire taking (some of) any soul's blood for the purpose of putting, in some fashion, blood as blood into use."

The transgression of the “abstain from blood” commandment is not in the taking of the blood out of the body, nor is it in the medical procedures that are performed on blood, whether tested or fractionated. The transgression lies in what you use the blood for AFTERWARDS. Witnesses do not use the blood as blood—they use minor fractions from the blood, which may no longer be considered to be blood at all. Others who draw from the blood supply do use the blood as blood, and thus THEY transgress the command to "abstain from blood." 

It is just as the WTS stated in their letter to Jenson:

"It might be argued that if blood was properly disposed of, it would not be possible to make serum injections, thus removing any reason for a question to come up on this matter.

IF BLOOD IS TAKEN FROM A BODY AND, BEFORE IT IS DISPOSED OF, IS BROKEN DOWN BY A MEDICAL PROCEDURE AND IN THE PROCESS A SMALL FRACTION IS EXTRACTED, NOT TO EAT OR TO NOURISH THE BODY, but to immunize against a disease, COULD IT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF GOD'S LAW not to eat blood?"

So the technician takes the blood and fractionates it. Then the fractions are given to one of JWs. It is when the technician or doctor actually gives the BLOOD to another human rather than to God that they have 'stolen' the blood. 

A reader wrote to us:

“I can understand that even properly bled meat is going to have some blood remaining which is eaten together with the flesh, however, this eating of blood is not intentional, reasonable efforts have been made to 'pour out' the blood at the onset according to God's Law. My question arises because in the case of blood fractions administered medically there must first have occur several procedures which we "DO NOT accept"”

This question underscores the same confusion that was dealt with above. We do not object to blood being put through medical procedures. This happens all the time in the case of blood testing. All we object to is the putting of blood into another person. The blood should be poured out after medical procedures are conducted. If doctors fail to pour out the blood, that is on them, not us. 

The same reader also wrote to us:

“The Watchtower also fails to recognize that all acceptable blood fractions come from blood that has been stored outside a human body, which in itself is on the Watchtower’s list of unacceptable practices.”

Once again, this statement is posed under the misconception that there is some transgression in simply handing or storing blood. The storage of blood itself violates no principles or Divine Laws. It is the end INTENT of the storage that matters. Jehovah’s Witnesses object to storage of blood for the purpose of later being put BACK INTO USE AS BLOOD. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not use blood as blood, nor do they donate blood with the end intent of having it used as blood. It cannot get much simpler than that; and yet, so many opposers seek to complicate things to an absurd level with strawmen arguments and equivocations.

3.0 JW’S STATEMENT 'WE ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD' IS MISLEADING? 

3.1 Question from the Peanut Gallery

“Do you not think that JWs statement 'we abstain from blood' is misleading, especially considering [such and such quotation] from your own literature?”

No I do not agree that the statement: “Jehovah’s Witnesses abstain from blood” is misleading. The claim that JW’s words, ‘we abstain from blood’, are misleading has no merit whatsoever. Those who try to characterize the Witnesses’ statement as misleading are the ones trying to mislead others about the teaching of JWs on blood. The JW’s statement is really no more misleading than Jesus' own statement:

John 6:53: Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no life in yourselves."

Opposers would say that Jesus was misleading. But if a person wanted to know the truth they could ask or hear the rest of his words, just as people today are free to ask JW’s for clarification on any topic. 

3.2 Ripping out of Context 

Essentially the opposer’s argument boils down to: JWs are misleading because I (that is opposer) choose to read only parts of certain articles so that I can ignorantly say that they are misleading. 

Opposers love to take only smidgeons out of articles in the WT and cry 'deception'. Doing that is deceptive. One cannot just take a phrase out of the WT and holler, 'See here. They are trying to mislead us!' The articles must be read in context and completely. The WT articles have long maintained that 'abstaining from blood' means using blood as food to sustain/eat. That is the context in which the Bible command was written. 

3.3 Intent 

When a JW says, “JW’s abstain from blood,” most normal people understand this to mean, JWs don't take blood transfusions. And even though I doubt that any normal person really thinks as deeply and paranoidly about it as our dear opposer, all they have to do if they have questions is continue to talk about it with or ask JWs. If anyone needs clarification, we will readily give it to them just as Jesus gave his disciples clarification about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. No JW and no WT publication have ever made that statement with intent to mislead, and the truth is right there in their publications for all to read and inquire about if they so desire. 

3.4 Trained to Mislead?

Q: But are not JW’s extensively trained to give out misleading information about their stance on blood? Are they not “trained” to tell doctors and family that they “abstain” from blood when they really do not, since they still accept blood fractions? 

Not every JW takes blood fractions, which may not be considered “blood” at all (see section regarding the question of “What is Blood?”) So of course they are 'trained' to tell the doctor what they will accept. It’s clearly outlined in a form in the WT publications for each JW to check off what they will and will not accept.

If one refuses to look at the whole story then he allows himself to be misled. All JWs are 'trained' to explain what they will and will not accept as respects blood fractions. And the WT publications have clearly stated what is meant by the command 'abstain from blood'. It does not mean stay away from ALL blood at all cost. (see previous sections on the meaning of “Abstain”) 

4. ILLUSTRATIONS 

4.1 Ocean Illustration:

We are going deep sea fishing in the ocean. We are told, "abstain from salt water". Now the person telling us that knows that salt water is unavoidable because we are in a boat sitting in the ocean water. They know we are fishing and that the fish that we will eat are coming out of the ocean water and will have salt water inside them. They know that we will be casting a line in the salt water, and dipping a net in the salt water, and sticking our hands in the salt water, and getting a bucket full of salt water to keep our fish in so that they won’t die. 

What does the person mean by, 'abstain from ocean water'? Of course, they mean, don't drink the salt water—don't use it for refreshment. 

So do we break their command when we take things out of the ocean water, such as fish, crab, or shrimp, to put into our bodies? Do we break the command because our hand might go into the ocean water? Do we break the command because we test the ocean water to find the best place to catch a Marlin? Do we break the command when Moby Dick sprays ocean water all over us as he sings his songs of love? Of course not. How about if a person had the equipment to boil the salt water, catch the steam as it condenses into distilled water, and then drink it, leaving the salt in the boiling pan? 

Does the person use from the salt water? Of course, that’s where the water comes from.

Does the person abstain salt water? Yes of course. He drinks distilled water not salt water. 

If we went out to sea and were told to abstain from salt water, we would obviously know that this meant not to drink it. Especially if we were given other examples not to drink or use salt water as refreshment. So the boiling of the salt water and drinking the distilled water would not be breaking the “abstain from salt water” command. 

4.2 Car Illustration One: 

If we were told to abstain from DRIVING cars, but we bought some tires to use on a playground, or bought a jack out of the car to level our house, or bought the longhorns off the front of the Cadillac to put in our flowerbed right next to our cactus as decoration, would we be breaking the abstain from driving cars command? 

4.3 Car Illustration Two: 

A manufacturer has given everyone a car. But he specifies that you should only drive your car and no one else’s. [Opposer] is having trouble starting his car. A mechanic takes a spare battery out of Thirdwitness' car with the permission of Thirdwitness and gives it to [Opposer] so his car will start. But then the mechanic takes that car and gives it to TearsofOberon whose car is broken down. TearsofOberon knows he is not permitted to have someone else's car. Did [Opposer] steal the car? Did [Opposer] steal the battery? Or was it the mechanic and TearsofOberon who disobeyed the manufacturer? 

4.4 Car Illustration Three: 

Everybody has a car. They are told not to take anyone else's car. But sometimes cars need parts.

There was one woman having trouble with her vintage volkswagon from 1969. But when she opened the front hood she was horrified to find that she had no engine. Well, a woman who owns a vintage Volkswagon was driving by and stopped to help her. When she was told of her dilemma, the good samaritan woman told her: "Hey, You're in luck. I just happen to have a spare engine in the trunk of my Volkswagon."

 This story is about as good as all the other car/blood comparisons. Cars just ain't blood in any way. 

4.5 Breaking Down the Opposer’s Own Car Illustration 

Point: 
“Thirdwitness owns a car. It is his car and his alone. That car is special to Thirdwitness. He decrees that everyone must abstain from his car, or else. I need things from Thirdwitness’ car to fix my own car. In fact I need quite a bit of it to fix my car. I ask Tears to steal Thirdwitness’ car from his carport and take it apart so I can buy the parts I want. I buy lots of parts. I don’t care what Tears does with the rest of the parts. All I want is what I wanted in the first place. So what do you think? Will Thirdwitness think me faithful to his decree? 

The problem is that the above car illustration compares 'abstain from car' to 'abstain from blood'. The illustration doesn't fit because it is not telling us what action cannot be taken toward the car.

For example, if one were to say, Abstain from driving that car, and you take a tire from it, then you did not disobey the command to abstain from driving it. And then you have to make the car something more than what a car can do because after you take the tire off another tire takes its place just like the old tire that you took.

The illustration simply does not work.

Now if you are told that you must abstain from driving the car and then someone sells you pieces of the car which magically reappear after you buy them and then the seller of the pieces drives away in the car, did you disobey the command to abstain from driving the car? Of course not.

You are not responsible for the other guy driving away in the car just because you purchased parts from the car. 

4.6 Breaking Down the Opposer’s Oil Illustration 

Point:

Thirdwitness owns all the oil of the world.  

Thirdwitness considers this oil as his sacred property.  
Thirdwitness loans every person 7 units of oil.  
Thirdwitness specifies that each person should abstain from the oil he has loaned to others because it belongs to Thirdwitness and Thirdwitness alone.  
EACH PERSON HAS THE CAPABILITY OF MANUFACTURING MORE OIL. THERE ARE CERTAIN PROTEINS AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIALS THAT HELP THE OIL TO FUNCTION CORRECTLY.

Thirdwitness specifies that when a person no longer needs the oil he loaned them that they must return it to its owner, Thirdwitness, by pouring it into the dirt.
Opposer’s oil is not working well.
Jerry’s oil is working so efficiently he does not need all of it. Opposer’s oil needs SOME PROTEINS from Jerry’s oil to make it work right. 
Opposer pays Tears to take oil from Jerry, WITH JERRY'S PERMISSION, and reduce it into PROTEINS that he can use. 
Opposer buys and uses a large amount of these PROTEINS from Jerry’s oil.
Opposer HAS NO SAY SO ON what Diogenes does with the EXTRACTED OIL from Jerry’s CAR, all he wants is what he NEEDED in the first place.
Tears sells the THE OIL to three other people whose oil is not working well.
What ye think?

Will Thirdwitness the think me faithful? 

Yes, You did not put Jerry’s oil into your car. 

Will Thirdwitness think me honest?

Yes, you did not steal Jerry’s oil from his car.

Will Thirdwitness think Tears a thief?

If he does not pour the oil out on the ground, yes. 

Will Thirdwitness think me an accomplice to theft of property?

No, you did not steal Jerry’s oil nor have it put into your car.