Talk:Scholar says Jehovah's Witnesses wrong about blood transfusions

This bit, "There are only four babies left after two of them died earlier." needs a few sentences of background before you can use it. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, i agree. I added some background to the story before I read your comment :) — F e  llow  Wiki  News   (W)   (sign here!)  20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd read the earlier story and pretty much forgotten about it, then I read this and didn't make the connection through the last sentence in the article. I'd probably put something up-front to indicating the guy is commenting on this case. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done — F e  llow  Wiki  News   (W)   (sign here!)  21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * perhaps needs some sort of reponse from somebody of that religion? Bawolff ☺☻ 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Article reads well now, a rebuttal would be interesting though probably difficult to come by. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this story is somewhat bias. I have deep connections with Jehovahs Witnesses and this story somewhat offended me. Especially with what the person was saying about reading the bible. I feel that everyone should have their own rights. But I'd rather see people not blow this out of porpotion.


 * I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and this scholar is using a straw man argument. The Noahide command on blood specifically includes human blood. I t does not imply that people were inclined to eat human blood that that human blood is also to be 'poured out upon the ground' because God is 'asking it back'. - Genesis 9 George m 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but its a too late to change it now. (We in general only change article before they are published, or at most a couple days after) sorry. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)