What is the Jehovah's Witness view of these questions about blood and self-preservation?

Question

God gave 2 laws about blood:

Don't eat it, and
Don't shed it

Each of these situations involve choosing between saving (or trying to save) your life, or breaking one of those laws.

What is the Jehovah's Witness view about them?

1. Eating meat with blood in it, or starving to death.

2. Kill or be killed.

3. Taking a blood transfusion or bleeding to death.

4. For women only (tubal pregnancy.) Having an operation to remove the tube and fetus which will result in the death of the child, but possibly prevent you from bleeding to death. Keep in mind that, in time, the fetus will die. You have to decide whether to wait for it to happen naturally, or having a share in deliberately ending the life of a living human. .

Could you justify or possibly justify breaking one of God's laws (don't eat blood, don't shed blood) to try to preserve your life in any of these situations? Is there a difference? If so, what?

I'm not understanding #2, so let me be more specific:

You are cornered in a house and an attacker has made it plain he intends to come in and kill you. You can't hide, but you have a butcher knife as your only means of self defense. You can submit and be killed, or defend yourself by attacking with the butcher knife which may result in mortal wounds to the attacker.

Are you justified in killing the attacker to preserve your life, if the attacker insists on a "fight to the death" of one or the other of you? Please don't try to skirt the answer. Yes or No?

Answer 1

I believe I have answered your question before regarding the 'Tubal' pregnancy, but I will again....

We do not eat meat with blood in it, it gets cooked. Yes, we would starve to death before breaking that law... There is always other food out there other than meat, and there is always a fire to cook it....Blood can be cooked out.

We would be killed before killing. We don't go to war either. Many of JWs have been killed already because they would not go to war and kill. If we are being attacked directly we will defend ourselves, but our object is not killing, it is to protect ourselves.

Nope, no blood transfusion. Do we want to die? NO way!!!! We tell the doctor to do everything they can to save our life, but that is the one thing we will not comprimise on. There are many alternatives out there to a blood transfusions and many doctors only like to have it in their back pocket for when they get sloppy. If the situation REALLY calls for it, there are other things that can be given to save your life. If you are going to die anyway, chances are you would have with a blood transfusion. At least this way if you die, you died doing what Jehovah asks of you and you have the hope of resurrection.

Now for the tubal.. I have answered this before.. Here is what I said...
Sometimes the treatment of a diseased condition, such as cancer of the cervix, causes the death of the developing embryo. But this may be an unavoidable side effect of the treatment; abortion is neither the treatment itself nor the objective. Similarly, in some cases a fertilized ovum implants and begins to grow in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Such a tubal ectopic pregnancy CANNOT develop fully in this small tube; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born.

With this being said, she may decide to have the operation because the baby has NO chance of survival, NONE. Personally, I feel like I am faced with this situation all the time because I had my tubes tied after my last c-section, and while that is an EXCELLENT method, I know its not fool proof. And if I did ever happen to get pregnant again, chances are it would be a tubal. It is scary, and something I would NEVER want to have to go through, but the baby would NEVER live, it would never survive and it would kill me also! Now IF they could go in there and move the baby and put it in the uterus, you better believe I would take ever risk and tell them to do that because then there is a chance even if there is a small chance, its a chance none the less... but they can't do that sadly... You would think with all the medical breakthroughs they would have figured out how to do that by now....Guess not... This is a really hard subject to write about, I hope I never have to give this any thought, I can't imagine having to have a tubal pregnancy removed. It just kills me because that baby is normal other than just implanting in the wrong place, but it has no chance!!! It is a sad thing that any women have to go through.

Answer 2

1: We don't eat meat with blood, therefore if we had a choice we between bloody meat or death we would chose death. That would be a weird situation though.

2: When Jesus was arrested and the Apostole John attacked the officer, Jesus told him, to put away his sword since those who use the sword will perish by the sword. -Matthew 26:50-53. So that basically answers this one.

3: That's an old question and I'm sure you know it already. In case you didn't know we would die before recieveing blood transfusions. But that is not the only alternative. There's also other methods for surviving that don't require blood transfusions.

4: I'm not a woman but my answer would probably be very similar to a woman JW. A doctor can never tell you for certainty if the fetus will die at birth or come out wrong. The majority of the time the doctors say this, they're wrong unfortunately we can only tell when the mother decides not to operate. And if it's a matter of life and death for the mother it is really hard to say their has to be certain circumstances. For example, my mom had that done but the fetus was already dead and was in a posicion that was fatal to my mother.
There is no way to justify breaking or bending God's laws. Specially if it's just gonna preserve our lives for only a couple of days or years but will lose God's approval and the chance to live for all eternity in his promised paradise.

Answer 3

Jehovah thru the Governing Body in Jerusalem gave a third command.

"Abstain from Blood" It doesn't say, Do not eat blood, but to Abstain.

Jesus could have avoided death on a stake, by disobeying God.

The first century Christians could have avoid death by disobeying God. (all they had to do was sprinkle incense into an open flame.

When did it become acceptable to disobey God for any reason?

Jehovah's Witnesses thru out the world have answered these questions with their lifes, just as Jesus and the 1st Century Christians did.

(Luke 17:33) Whoever seeks to keep his soul safe for himself will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive.

This is where faith become something you live or die by.

.

Answer 4

1. with patience, you can drain the blood from the meat.

2. Self defense is acceptable

3.Bleed to death. Happily there are alternatives to blood transfusions, so we won't have to die.

4. If the fetus is guaranteed to die, then I believe it would be acceptable. to have the operation.

God's laws do have clauses, just as every one does. Remember, God had the Jews Eradicate villages to claim the "Land of Milk and Honey".

A lot of the gray area situations you've brought to light are circumstantial, and require prayer, counsel from the congregation elders, and your own conscience.

Answer 5

I know that when you listen to the news on tv, they often talk about Jehovah's that dies because they dont want to get a blood transfer when they go to hospital and if you are too kind with them , they harass you. I know it because I'v done it once and now they come to my home every wednesday .. :(
There is a petition going on in Quebec city that a brother of one Jehova's guy started because his bro didnt want to get a blood transfer and died because of this decision, that is sad . But I really think that in general they are good people

Answer 6

Hold on for me, too!

EDIT: I'll be as brief as possible on each point.
1. Animal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood

Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”

Any animal used for food should be properly bled. One that is strangled or that dies in a trap or that is found after it has died is not suitable for food. (Acts 15:19, 20; compare Leviticus 17:13-16.) Similarly, any food to which whole blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not be eaten.

2. Taking Another’s Life

The expression ‘take the life of a fellowman’ implies a conscious effort to kill another. A true Christian would not do this. If attacked and unable to flee from his assailant who is determined to inflict injury or death, a Christian may try to ward off the blows or even strike out in defense, perhaps using whatever was at hand to protect himself or others. But his actions would be defensive only. He would not try to kill or punish his attacker but only try to neutralize the attack. If the attacker was to receive a fatal blow, it would be accidental, not intentional.—ED.

***This is not pacifism, a policy of nonresistance under any circumstance. At Exodus 22:2, 3, a situation is described in which a thief is fatally struck while entering someone’s home during the day. Such a defensive measure was considered tantamount to murder, since the thief could have been identified and brought to justice. But during the night, it would be difficult for the householder to see an intruder and ascertain his intentions. Therefore, the person killing an intruder in the dark was considered guiltless.

Thus, the Bible does not uphold impetuous attempts at self-defense. In not supporting pacifism, however, the Bible indicates that there is a time to defend oneself. Christians may ward off physically aggressive attacks against themselves, their families, or others in genuine need of defense. But they would not initiate an attack, nor would they physically retaliate to save their possessions. They would not carry weapons in anticipation of such an attack; rather, they endeavor to “live peaceably.”—2 Corinthians 13:11.

3. Either/Or Reasoning;This fallacy reduces what may be a wide range of options to only two. For example, a person may be told: ‘Either you accept a blood transfusion or you will die.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses often run into such reasoning because of their Bible-based decision to ‘abstain from blood’ in any form. (Acts 15:29) The weakness of this line of reasoning? It excludes other valid possibilities. The facts show that there are alternative treatments, and most operations can be performed successfully without blood. Skilled doctors often operate with a minimal loss of blood. Another possibility is the use of nonblood fluids, plasma volume expanders. Furthermore, many have taken blood transfusions and died. By the same token, many have refused blood and lived. The hole in the either/or reasoning is thus a gaping one.

So when presented with either/or reasoning, ask yourself, ‘Are there really only two possible choices? Might there be others?’

4. Sometimes the treatment of a diseased condition, such as cancer of the cervix, causes the death of the developing embryo. But this may be an unavoidable side effect of the treatment; abortion is neither the treatment itself nor the objective. Similarly, in some cases a fertilized ovum implants and begins to grow in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. Such a tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot develop fully in this small tube; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born.

No, you CANNOT justify breaking God's law, that's exactly what satan would want us to do. Remember what he said about Job?

Job 2:4- But Satan answered Jehovah and said: “Skin in behalf of skin, and everything that a man has he will give in behalf of his soul

(Sorry if I wasn't as brief as you might have liked :-D )

Answer 7

God gave laws, but He also gave us wisdom and discernment to use the laws. I do not think that just because he said, "do not eat blood, do not shed blood", equates NOT saving a life via blood transfusion.

Answer 8

there was an interesting thing about this in the paper.
A woman with two children was a JW and is she had a blood tranfusion it was 100% certain that she would live. Now her children will live motherless.
I think even though it says dont eat it or shed it it doesnt say "dont have a blood transfusion"

Answer 9

I guess you have to take into account that God or was it the writer of the laws was unaware that humans would beat him hollow when it came to being compassionate after a few thousand years.
Of course must have been aware. As He is all knowing, but he just didn't take it into account.

Answer 10

It is hypothetical examples like this that actually help Jehovah's Witnesses understand how amazing true religion actually is. True Christians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) do not merely obey those Laws of God which they find convenient.

1. Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT eat meat that has been improperly bled, even if that means starving to death.

2. Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT "plan ahead" to use lethal force to repel an attacker; Jehovah's Witnesses do not learn martial arts and do not carry firearms specifically so that they will NOT bear the bloodguilt of unintentional killing (even in self-defense).

3. Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions.

4. A pregnant Jehovah's Witness would NOT choose her own life over that of her unborn child. A tubal pregnancy is a unique circumstance where the child has no hope of survival, and even that operation is up to the conscience of the individual Witness.


The questioner did not, but other have tried to point to the bible itself in a misguided attempt to show that God's laws can be ignored when life seems at risk. These anti-Witnesses point to 1 Sam 14:32 and Matt 12:4.

Does 1 Samuel 14:32-35 indicate that the bible's command to abstain from blood could be ignored when life seems at risk?

No, that bible account is actually powerful testimony of the precise opposite. For one thing, the soldiers involved in this account were not literally at risk of starvation, for they had been without food for perhaps one day and had had the bodily resources to fight a battle just minutes or hours earlier. However unwise it was for King Saul to forbid the soldiers from eating until the battle was concluded, nothing in the account implies that eating within minutes or hours (or days for that matter) would be life-saving.
...(1 Samuel 14:32-34) And the people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood. 33 So they told Saul, saying: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.” At this he said: “You have dealt treacherously. First of all, roll a great stone to me.” 34 After that Saul said: “Scatter among the people, and you must say to them, ‘Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.’” Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there.

With regard to that livestock, what was different about "slaughtering in this place [the great stone]" (verse 34), rather than "slaughtering them on the earth" (verse 32)?

It seems that the Israelite soldiers actually were making some attempt to properly slaughter the livestock, but they did so "greedily" and hastily so that the blood puddled "on the earth" and some splashed onto the meat. The purpose of "the great stone" was to elevate the animal so that its blood could drain off that elevated surface onto the earth below.


Does Matthew 12:4 imply that God's laws are subject to human whims? No, that verse mentions an account which teaches almost exactly the opposite. Jesus himself noted...
...(Matthew 12:4) [David] entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only

Did the Mosaic Law go into any detail implying that eating the loaves of presentation would be a "serious sin". No; in fact, the only Scripture which really discusses the command at all is Leviticus chapter 24. (By contrast, failure to abstain from blood was a capital crime under both the Mosaic Law and the earlier Noachan Covenant mentioned at Genesis 9:4,5).
...(Leviticus 24:7-9) it must serve as the bread for a remembrancer, an offering made by fire to Jehovah. 8 On one sabbath day after another he should set it in order before Jehovah constantly [for one week]. And [after that week] it must become Aaron’s and his sons’, and they must eat it in a holy place, because it is something most holy for him from Jehovah’s offerings

Did David and his men decide for themselves that they could ignore this command? No. The Jewish priest analyzed the matter and came to a theological determination, as he was authorized to do. Even during this seeming emergency involving the anointed David on his obviously godly mission, the authorized priest did not "ignore" God's law, but made certain that David and his men met the absolute minimum requirement for emergency priestly duties.
...(1 Samuel 21:4-6) But the priest answered David and said: “There is no ordinary bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; provided that the young men have at least kept themselves from womankind.” So David answered the priest and said to him: “But womankind has been kept away from us...” At that the priest gave him what was holy


More than a thousand years before the birth of Moses and the creation of the Mosaic Law, God told humans to abstain from blood. Years after the founding of the Christian congregation, the holy spirit specifically instructed the apostles that the Mosaic Law was no longer in force EXCEPT for its command to abstain from blood. It seems rather obvious that this is a matter which Almighty God takes seriously.
...(Acts 15:20,28,29) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication and from what is strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood. ...For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood and from things strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm