you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 79 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Despite the adjustment, the organisation was firm that its longstanding prohibition on whole-blood transfusions has not changed. It anchored the continued ban on its reading of biblical instructions to "abstain from blood," signalling that the shift applies only to the four major components, not to transfusions in their entirety.

People died because of this and now they just go "we looked at the rules again and we think they actually mean something else". What the fuck is this? The Supreme Court?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    and "abstain from blood" in biblical times for sure meant "transfusions" too *head -> desk"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    You forget that God knows all and can see future technology. We’re still waiting for the passage β€œThou shalt not step into thy transporter, for it causeth loss of thy soul” to become relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    It's probably because they had issues with blood types.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    It's stupid. All they had to do was prohibit eating of blood 70 years ago and nobody would have blinked an eye, because that's exactly what the verse meant in its entirety. The whole blood loophole they've done here to save face is meaningless, since whole blood is almost never used except in severe trauma and even then you can use fractions and have a pretty good chance of recovering. A whole lot of people had to die to get here. It sucks.

  • source
  • parent