Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?Page 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I AM a blood donor. Gave last week. I figure it's one way I can give back to the NHS, in return for what they have given me and my family and friends, and might give me and my family and friends in the future.

Interesting enough, they said that if everyone who COULD give blood, did give blood, they'd be overflowing, with no problems in operations. Cannot think of a reason why most people don't.

RE Msg: 7 by IcePie:
There are of course some spiritual beliefs which rule out blood donation.
There ARE? I know JWs cannot ACCEPT blood transfusions. But I cannot recall anyone saying they cannot give, or anyone else.

And as Tony Hancock famously said, "A pint? That's very nearly an armful!"
Yup. But your blood is replaced every 3 months, whether you donate or not. So you're not really losing anything you wouldn't have lost anyway.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 12/26/2010 6:28:03 AM
RE Msg: 10 by IcePie:
All the Abrahamic religions regard living blood as containing the spirit and regard blood out of the body as spiritually dead and therefore unclean. To interfere with would be considered sacrilege by orthodox followers and they would no more consent to give blood than receive it.

Plenty of refereneces in Genesis and Leviticus which are, of course, subject to interpretation and there are those who choose to interpret them as forbidding it.
I'm a Jew, a member of the founding nation of all Abrahamic religions. I've known every variant of Judaism, and according to them ALL, one can give blood and receive it.

The bible does talk about blood being special, that you have to be extra careful about ensuring you don't hurt others, because when you take their blood, you take their soul. One of the things we learn from this, we learn that you are forbidden from embarrassing someone else, because when you embarrass someone else, the blood rushes from their face, and their face goes white. But far more so, are you forbidden from hurting anyone else in general. That's what the "blood" is all about.

But, why not go and check for yourself? Why not go ask a Rabbi, a Catholic priest, an Anglican minister, and a Muslim Imam?
 badge73
Joined: 1/17/2009
Msg: 15
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 12/27/2010 5:11:33 AM
did they donate blood couple of thousand years ago? ......

i cannot give blood as no doubt due to my medication, plus i have a quite a bad phobia about needles to such a degree either start swinging and panicking or i just faint due to blood pressure just dropping like a stone which is quite embarrassing, as last time they took blood i came round with a old nurse rubbing my hand asking if they should call my mother!! not good for 6ft 37 year old.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 16
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 12/27/2010 7:32:26 AM
RE Msg: 21 by nx_rocks:
of course it matters where information comes from. ahmed, the above jewish poster and online people may offer their opinion but its hardly a representative sample is it... maybe those who engage with online interaction are more open minded to change.. that doesnt mean their entire community feels the same way...
Let me be clear. You have made a claim about Abrahamic religions, namely, Judaism, Xianity and Islam. Therefore, if we are to accept your point, it's down to you to prove it.

I've been asked to give blood in Jewish ultra-religious colleges. I've never come across ANY suggestion that in Judaism one should not give blood. Here are a few online sources.

This is from Chabad's site, who have followers in the hundreds of thousands, possibly in the millions:
There is nothing in Jewish law that would preclude a person from benefiting from a blood transfusion (or donating blood, for that matter).

Furthermore, according to Jewish belief, saving a life is one of the most important mitzvot (commandments), overriding nearly all of the others. (The exceptions are murder, certain sexual offenses, and idol-worship—we cannot transgress these even to save a life.) Therefore, if a blood transfusion is deemed medically necessary, then it is not only permissible but obligatory.

All the best,

Rochel Chein for Chabad.org
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/625443/jewish/Is-blood-transfusion-permissible-in-Jewish-belief.htm

Here's another source:
Chief Rabbis of Israel Call for Blood Donations

(Monday, April 20th, 2009)

mda.jpgIsrael’s Chief Rabbis, Rav Yona Metzger Shlita and Rishon L’Tzion Rav Shlomo Moshe Amar Shlita have issued a call for citizens to donate blood to MDA blood banks, with an emphasis to those people with rare blood types.

The rabbonim use the opportunity to praise the work of Magen David Adom, which is responsible for the nation’s blood banks as well as the primary emergency medical service provider nationwide.

The kol korei stresses that people with rare blood types should donate a unit a blood, which may save a life.

(Yechiel Spira – YWN Israel)
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=33141

When asked regarding giving blood for the health of others, Rav Shlomo Zalman answered that you only need to wash when done for your own refuah. Since giving to others is a mitzva, nothing bad will happen from it.
http://www.revach.net/article.php?id=3925

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was a world-reknowned Jewish authority on Jewish law, accepted by the most ultra-orthodox of Jews. He said it was a "mitzva", which is a "good deed ordered by G-d". It is thus, according to him, obligatory, and a praiseworthy good deed, for which one is rewarded in Heaven.

Here are a few things about blood donation in Islam:
Shaykh Abdul-Hafeez Rasool who teaches Quran to students in Manchester says: "Donating blood is an act of charity. It might save the life of a person who is in desperate need of it. Referring to this, Allah, the Almighty says: “…and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” (Al Quran: Surah Al-Ma'dah: 32)
http://www.islamictimes.co.uk/content/view/400/87/


Permissibility of blood donations is based on the analogy of saving people from drowning, burning, or being buried under a collapsed building, all of which cases involve the potential harm for the person trying to save them.

Allah, the Almighty, says, (And help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression.) (Al-Ma'idah 5:2)
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1265890381306&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar1

As for Xianity, I only have to point out the number of blood drives that are held in churches. 2 churches in my local area run the local blood drives. So it's obvious to me that Xians support blood donation.

Here's another blood drive in the city of Moberly in the state of Missouri in the USA:
http://www.moberlymonitor.com/breaking/x719360334/Blood-drive-at-Central-Christian-Church-Dec-20

You can see here, that Xian religious leaders, Muslim religious leaders, Hindu religious leaders and Sikh religious leaders, all support blood donation:
Faith leaders from several of the UK's major religions are lending their support to a campaign to encourage more black and Asian people to donate blood.

The National Blood Service (NBS) campaign, called 'Circle of Life' aims to highlight the need for regular blood donation from all communities to ensure demand for blood is met.

The act of blood donation has received endorsement from Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh faith leaders, who recognise that more blood donors from ethnic communities are needed across England and north Wales. Currently, only five percent of the eligible population donate blood, and less than three percent of the total number of donors are from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Research has shown that many non-donors have assumed religious objections to blood donation, while in fact none of the major faiths practised in the UK forbid the life-saving act.

The NBS hopes the faith leader endorsement will help overcome fears that blood donation is not accepted and will encourage more people to not only consider donating blood, but also come forward and actually donate.

Bishop Dr Joe Aldred, Chair of the Council of Black-led Churches commented: "I believe that giving blood is an act of love and compassion that will directly help our fellow brothers and sisters.

"Jesus taught us about love through all His words and actions, and shedding His blood on the cross for us is the ultimate act of Love.

"I support this campaign to encourage more black people to give blood and I ask you to come forward and give a small amount of time to help your community and to save lives."

Shahid Raza, President of World Islamic Mission of Europe and Founder of British Muslim Forum, added: "In Islam blood donation is not only permissible but it is considered as an act of charity, and kindness. Helping someone to save his/her life or alleviating their suffering by donating blood brings enormous reward by God.

"As an Imam and director of Imam's and Mosques Council UK, I wish to participate in any campaign in respect of creating and enhancing the awareness of the benefits of blood donation."

The NBS collects around 7,000 blood donations every day just to maintain the supply of blood to hospitals across England and north Wales. On average, just over 200 of these donations are from ethnic minority donors.

Zeeshan Agshar of the NBS explained why they are aiming to increase this number to at least 300 a day, and also increase the black and Asian registrations on the British Bone Marrow Registry by a further 1500.

He said: "We are encouraging people from the widest communities to come forward to ensure that whenever someone is in need of blood or bone marrow, there is a matching type available. Some blood types are more common within ethnic communities, and with bone marrow, you are much more likely to find a match from your own ethnic group.

"With the Circle of Life campaign and support from key Faith Leaders, we are trying to break down barriers to show that there is nothing to fear. Individuals can make a huge difference to the lives of people in their own community and there is no better gift than the gift of life."

If you are aged between 17 - 59 years of age, in general good health and weigh over 7st 12lbs (50kgs) you can potentially give blood. Donors can ring the National Donor Helpline on 0845 7 711 711 (open 24hrs) or visit www.blood.co.uk to register their details and find the venues and times for their nearest blood donation session.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/faith.leaders.support.campaign.for.more.black.and.asian.blood.donors/13668.htm

However, this article does explain your misunderstanding. It does say that "research has shown that many non-donors have assumed religious objections to blood donation, while in fact none of the major faiths practised in the UK forbid the life-saving act."

Many people THINK that religions are against blood donation. But in truth, the opposite is the case. It's definitely permissible, and according to many religious leaders, it's akin to saving a life.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 12/28/2010 9:26:15 AM
RE Msg: 27 by nx_rocks:

research has shown that many non-donors have assumed religious objections to blood donation
thanks for backing up my point...
Read the full quote:
Research has shown that many non-donors have assumed religious objections to blood donation, while in fact none of the major faiths practised in the UK forbid the life-saving act.
In other words, a lot of people who don't know about their religion, or other religions, simply assumed that religions forbade blood donations, but never bothered to check with a Rabbi, a Priest, a Minister, an Imam, or any other religious leader, or questioned any religious scholar about if their assumption had any validity in reality.

It's rather not unlike a reported study on AIDS, that found that 1 in 3 British teenagers believed you could catch AIDS from a toilet seat. Ask any doctor or any health professional, and they'll tell you that's bogus. The AIDS virus only transfers via exposure to your blood, not your skin alone. But still, 1 in 3 British teens heard this, and didn't bother to check with their doctors. Same problem, and the same solution.

As my sister often cited to me: If you ASSUME, you make an A** out of U and ME.


Let me be clear. You have made a claim about Abrahamic religions, namely, Judaism, Xianity and Islam. Therefore, if we are to accept your point, it's down to you to prove it.
as clear as mud.... where have i made any claims...? i merely acknowledged that some people may have beliefs that stop them donating blood...
You wrote:
There are of course some spiritual beliefs which rule out blood donation.
These are beliefs, like the belief that you can catch AIDS from a toilet seat, that you can cure STDs by having sex with a virgin, which was a belief quite common in Victorian London, and the belief that "all men cheat".

But they aren't based on any spiritual beliefs of religions. They aren't based on medical opinions. They aren't based on statistical data. They're just assumptions people came up, because they took ONE concept that was stated, and then extended it beyond the original, way beyond any reasonable understanding of the original. But even then, it doesn't warrant to come up with a new idea, just because you CAN. In reality, they are ALL defence mechanisms against things we fear but are too afraid to try to understand.

E.G.:

1) Some men cheat. All of my boyfriends cheated on me (all 2 of them). So "all men cheat".

Obviously not all men cheat. But if you've had your heart broken, it's a lot easier to protect your heart, by accepting that your future boyfriends are all going to cheat on you now, so you don't have to be as heartfully disappointed later on.

2) You can easily catch AIDS from having anal sex, as small blood vessels are burst which allows blood contact, which spreads AIDS. Women can also often catch AIDS from heterosexual sex for the same reason. Ergo, the areas that involve sex, bum and vagina, are sensitive to getting AIDS. You put that area of your body on a toilet seat. Ergo, you can catch AIDS from a toilet seat.

AIDS requires infection by blood contact, and there is no blood exposure. So obviously, you are not going to catch AIDS from a toilet seat. However, AIDS is scary, as there currently is no cure, and it's terminal. So people try to do whatever they can to avoid getting it. However, the truth is, that if you kiss someone who has AIDS, there is a risk that you and the other person both have a slight cut cheek or lip, and there is blood contact. So the CDC recommends to not have prolonged open-mouth kissing with someone with HIV.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/403671

Problem is, that would actually require you to not just kiss anyone you felt like kissing, until you found out that if they were HIV-positive or not, and few are likely to admit that to a stranger without getting embarrassed. So if you are pursuing a lifestyle of kissing and screwing as many people as possible, as so many do, it's far easier to develop a defence mechanism to tell yourself you CAN stop yourself getting AIDS, without having to actually change your lifestyle or desires in any reasonable and significant way. The easy answer is to make up something about toilet seats, so that as long as you hover over a toilet seat, you can tell yourself that you can kiss and screw anyone, and still pretend you won't get AIDS.

3) Lots of prostitutes had STDs in Victorian London. The less sex a woman has had, the less likely you will catch an STD from her, and so the more you are protected. Women who have had the least sex are virgins, so they are the most protecting from STDs. The most protection you can get from STDs is being cured of them. Hence, virgins have the greatest potential to cure you of an existing STD.

The whole reason that a virgin can "protect" you from an STD, is only that you cannot catch one from her, and not anything more than that.

The obvious and only practical solution to not getting STDs in Victorian London, was to find yourself a healthy woman, marry her, and only have sex with her. In other words, give up the whores. But a lot of guys didn't want to do that. Besides, it would be really unpleasant to accept that you had an STD, and that there was little you could do about it. It would be even more unpleasant to accept that if you did have an STD, and continued to have sex with whores, then you'd pass it on to others, and that would make you a nasty person to harm others like that. Far easier to continue screwing anything that moved, and whenever you felt a twinge, pay for an older whore to arrange your purchase of a 9-year-old virgin girl from her starving mother for a few pounds, and then you can pretent that you've been "cured", and can keep on whoring regardless.

4) The Bible says you cannot drink blood of animals or humans, and it's considered abhorrent to do so. Drinking is absorbing via the mouth. But you can also absorb blood via a needle, like in a blood transfusion. Since drinking blood is considered abhorrent by society, anything even close to that might also be repugnant, including blood transfusions. If everyone didn't accept blood transfusions, then blood donors would have no-one to give blood to. Also, the fact that blood donations exist, might tempt someone to do something you consider repugnant, such as a blood transfusion. Better not to give at all.

But the Bible only outlaws drinking blood of animals or humans, does not outlaw drinking blood of fish, and doesn't put any restriction on blood transfusions at all, and in certain passages, says "You should live by them", and mean religious denominations understand that to mean "you should live by them, and thus, in general, religious duties don't take precedence over human life, and thus, if blood donations would save human life, it would be G-d's will to do so.

However, if you DID give blood, you'd have to deal with your fear of needles. You'd have to deal with your fear of having things taken from your body that you MIGHT need later, even though the odds are that you WON'T need that blood, and if you DID, it would be because you were bleeding to death, and that if enough pints were draining from your body to put you in jeopardy, then that pint would probably drain as well, and woudn't save you either. You'd have to think rationally about your own mortality, and to do that, you'd have to look at the possibility of your own death without going into a panic about it. Plus, the point of blood donations is that there are many who would die without a transfusion, and thus, you are accepting that many have accidents which could kill them, and you could easily be one of them. So you'd have to confront your own fear of death, to be rational about it. Far easier just to avoid facing it, and avoid facing anything that might remind you that one day, you could die.

Then, if you DID read what the Bible actually says, you'd have to actually do it. That means that when the Bible says things like "don't tell tales about your friends", "don't take vengeance against others", and "don't hold a grudge", you'd have to do them too, and that would stop you doing the things you enjoy. Plus, if you DID accept that you couldn't drink blood, but you could make a donation, then you'd have to think rationally about the Bible and about G-d, which you could only do if you confronted your fear of G-d. But since G-d is a Supreme being that controls everything, you'd effectively be confronting not just your fear of G-d, but your fear of all beings of great power. You'd have to confront your fear of your boss, your fear of soldiers and cops, your fear of anyone who can wield power over you. You could no longer think of them as a capricious unpredictable being controlled by emotions, who you can manipulate easily by appealing to their vanity and ego. You'd have to acknowledge there are forces beyond your control, and this would force you to acknowledge that your life is insecure, and that would make YOU feel very insecure, all the time. It's far easier just to pretend that people and deities function on emotional feelings like an abhorrence of blood, and that you can manipulate them by appealing to their emotional desires and irrational feelings of disgust.

All of these ideas are superstitions made by people who were drawing inferences from what they heard, without checking it with an expert in the field, and without actually thinking it out fully, because the were developing self-defence mechanisms that supported their current lifestyles and desires, without having to face facts.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 28
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 12/30/2010 11:56:16 AM
RE Msg: 34 by nx_rocks:
Given that I wasn't alive during Victoria's reign, I have had to rely on innate knowledge to have hear of her existence - just like you and everybody else on this site...

you are a lucky thing ….. i must have been at the back of the queue when they were handing out innate knowledge… i learnt about victoria’s reign from history lessons and books…
I too have never been strong in innate knowledge, which is why my knowledge of Victoria's reign comes from extensive learning about the history of that period, from books and a variety of other sources, including first-hand testimony of those who were alive during the end of that period, which included my late grandmother, but also others.

Plenty of refereneces in Genesis and Leviticus which are, of course, subject to interpretation and there are those who choose to interpret them as forbidding it.
I've spent a lot of time studying the Bible, and every interpretation that anyone has ever said. There are references in Genesis and Leviticus, which some interpret as requiring them to not RECEIVE blood. But no-one interprets them as not being able to GIVE blood.

and more to the point… what right does anyone have to dispute personal beliefs…?

are we debating the same thing…? i’m acknowledging that some people believe they should not donate blood… other posters seem to be debating whether various faiths condone it or not… two totally different points.. but thanks for the effort guys.. hope you didn’t put too much time in
I'm also acknowledging that some people believe that they should not donate blood, like some people believe that having sex with a virgin cures AIDS. But I'm also acknowledging that those beliefs have no actual valid source, not in way at all, and that as a result, these people are simply deciding that such sources exist, when they quite clearly don't.

People are entitled to follow their beliefs. But when their own beliefs testify that certain conclusions are definite results of those beliefs, to go against those conclusions, is to go against those beliefs. You cannot support that, because to do so, is to support them to follow their beliefs, by them NOT following their beliefs.

I fully support people's right to their religious beliefs. That's precisely why I am saying they should give blood, because according to THEIR beliefs, and THEIR interpretations of the Old Testament, they SHOULD give blood.
 Mikitaka
Joined: 9/11/2008
Msg: 30
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 12/30/2010 1:49:44 PM
Interesting point about someone having herpes and not being able to give. Apparently 1 in 5 American adults have HSV2 taking out 20% of the supply straight away. When you add all the other infections, conditions and religious prohibitions, it doesn't leave a lot to cope with demand.
I used to give when a bus came to my workplace or when I knew a few days in advance of some local collection facility. If it's advertised too early I forget and if it's advertised for tomorrow I can't make arrangements in time. The best way for me would be to have a circular through my door saying it's in 3 to 5 days time (assuming I don't bin it with the other circulars that is!). So advertising is critical.
I give because I had a family member who was seriously ill and needed several transfusions and was never able to pay back. I'd like to see people who haven't donated or who don't have blood credits from family members giving, to be charged and the money ploughed back to the NHS.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 33
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood donor?
Posted: 12/30/2010 5:33:20 PM
RE Msg: 43 by nx_rocks:
its good you can acknowledge peoples personal beliefs, but people who have such a belief don’t need your or anyone elses validation, they are entitled to believe whatever they want; its called “choice”. unlike aids sufferers having sex with a virgin, these people are not hurting anyone and do not pose a risk to the world. there is no comparison between the two; one is a potential murderer and the other isn’t…
I'm not demanding that they HAVE to give blood. I don't want anyone to be forced to give blood. It should be their choice. They have the right to say that they are afraid of needles, or they really can't be asked. But it would not be right for them to claim that they are not giving blood for religious reasons, when that cannot be the case.


I fully support people's right to their religious beliefs. That's precisely why I am saying they should give blood, because according to THEIR beliefs, and THEIR interpretations of the Old Testament, they SHOULD give blood.
this is a contradictory statement… you support their beliefs, as long as they practice in such a way deemed ok by somebody who felt that their interpretation was the correct one…? which implies if they don’t practice how somebody else chooses, then their belief cannot be supported…?
I support their beliefs, as long as they practice in such a way deemed ok by THEM, and they don't say that the Bible outlaws blood donation, which implies if they don’t practice how THEY choose, then supporting their beliefs would not include supporting non-donation.

what if a person (who chooses not to donate) is considering the godly well-being of the receiver in his practice of not donating… ? if he (the donator) believes he cannot receive, surely he is entitled to consider this inappropriate for other people as well, and consequently, withholds his own blood from them so they will be prevented from “sinning” .….

therefore… people who believe they cannot receive but can donate are actually perpetuating sin in others…
That's fine, as long as the other person believes that receiving blood is a sin. But, if there are plenty of other people who believe that receiving blood is NOT a sin, and there are, then the person is of the view that he supports their beliefs, as long as they practice in such a way deemed ok by him, who feels that his interpretation was the correct one, and their interpretation is wrong, which implies if they don’t practice how he chooses, then their belief cannot be supported by him.

hows that for a cool interpretation…?
Your own words show, that according to you, those who believe they should not receive blood, should donate, because if they didn't, they would be imposing their beliefs on the majority who do not share them.
 moonstone123
Joined: 8/20/2008
Msg: 39
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood donor?
Posted: 1/2/2011 9:12:50 AM
I confess that I have not thoroughly read every post on this thread but I did skim one or two and can see that there are lots of different opinions. I'm not sure I understand the religious viewpoint about it all though.
I was told that I shouldn't even try to donate because I have rather narrow veins and it takes ages to get even a small blood sample from me when I need tests, and I often end up with a bruise mark.

All I can say to those who DO give blood....RESPECT!!!
I hope I am fortunate to never need to be on the receiving end, but if I ever do, then thank you to all those wonderful people who do donate.
 *november babee*
Joined: 2/19/2009
Msg: 40
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood donor?
Posted: 1/3/2011 1:34:12 PM
i have given blood on several occasions in the past and hopefully in the future i will do again.. currently im on medication which prevents me from giving blood, but as im due an operation in the next few months obviously im very aware of blood donations and am very very grateful to the continuing donations given by people countrywide...
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 1/4/2011 10:26:51 AM
RE Msg: 47 by IcePie:

I'm a Jew, a member of the founding nation of all Abrahamic religions...
yada yada yada... so being a jew automatically makes your opinion superior does it?
NOT SUPERIOR, but a member of Abrahamic religions, and as it happens, knowledgeable about Judaism, and other Abrahamic religions as well. I have brought sources to show that all Abrahamic religious are fine with donating blood. Thus, proof has been brought. The burden of proof thus is on the side of those who claim the opposite, to show their case.

I wasn't aware that Islam was founded by a jew. Maybe you want to spend a few nanoseconds thinking before spouting your delusions of racial supremacy all over the place?
It wasn't. Maybe you want to spend a few nanoseconds actually reading the whole of my post, and making the same efforts I did, to look up Islamic sources on the subject of blood donation, and realise that Islam supports blood donation, before you want to start making false accusations about others.

RE Msg: 48 by nx_rocks:
i cannot comprehend that you (or anyone else) can deny someone their beliefs because they dont correspond with yours... that is just plain wrong...
I'm saying, that whatever anyone believes, even ones that don't make sense to anyone else, that they have to be given the free choice to not give blood, to avoid the situation of totalitarian dictatorships.

However, everyone's beliefs are consistent with giving blood, even those who don't believe in receiving blood. They just don't realise it, because they are encouraged to not think rationally and questioningly about their or anyone else's beliefs, by our own governments. That's not their fault. That's OUR fault, for voting for people who want us to not use our brains in a rational fashion.


Your own words show, that according to you, those who believe they should not receive blood, should donate, because if they didn't, they would be imposing their beliefs on the majority who do not share them.
erm… what...? how… where..
You stated that:
this is a contradictory statement… you support their beliefs, as long as they practice in such a way deemed ok by somebody who felt that their interpretation was the correct one…? which implies if they don’t practice how somebody else chooses, then their belief cannot be supported…?
You advocate that I cannot impose my will on them. By them not giving blood, they are imposing their will on everyone else who believes they CAN receive blood.

That's the problem. They are deliberately acting in ways that demand that others have to do their will.

For that reason, we cannot demand that they give blood, for to do so, would be imposing our will on them. But we are entitled to equally state our principles as much as they, that if we are to respect their free will, they ought to respect everyone else's, and not deny everyone else receiving blood, when everyone else has no problem with it.

All I'm really calling for, is to educate those people to learn about what their own beliefs and principles argue for. Then if they want to go against their own religion and not donate blood, they are choosing to not donate blood out of free choice, rather than ignorance about their own beliefs.
 try1more
Joined: 12/16/2007
Msg: 44
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 1/4/2011 6:46:19 PM
scorpio

on your profile you claim you're not religious.
on here you claim to be a jew.
and you're acting more of a zealot than any jehova's witness thats ever knocked on my door.

personally i think you are trolling.
and it's not got anything to do with the thread.

ot: all i'll say is i dont, and after three pages of crap, thats all i'll say.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 45
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 1/16/2011 11:14:32 AM
RE Msg: 57 by nx_rocks:

I'm saying, that whatever anyone believes, even ones that don't make sense to anyone else, that they have to be given the free choice to not give blood, to avoid the situation of totalitarian dictatorships.
thank you. although i have to admit i struggle with the word "given"... it is their right to choose and no one has the right to "give" them that choice... it was already theirs in the first place..
I respect that. I am not perfect, and sometimes choose a less than perfect word. However, I do feel that sometimes, rights have to be supported, even when they are already there, to ensure they are always respected.

no one is stopping anyone receiving blood if that is their choice, they just wont be receiving the blood of people that choose not to donate.
I appreciate that and respect it.


For that reason, we cannot demand that they give blood, for to do so, would be imposing our will on them. But we are entitled to equally state our principles as much as they, that if we are to respect their free will, they ought to respect everyone else's, and not deny everyone else receiving blood, when everyone else has no problem with it
back to square one... so if they are to show respect to your view, then they should donate? even though they believe they shouldnt donate, they should do it anyway, just to show you respect...?
Not at all. It has to remain their choice whether to donate or not, even if they state they have no reason not to.

But if someone says to me that they will not donate on some specific grounds, then I would treat them the same way as I would do anything done on specific grounds, the same way as I would do if someone said to me that they refuse to let a gay person use their toilet in case the gay person might have AIDS, and they might catch AIDS from their toilet. I would question their reasoning, so that they do not later on conclude they were wrong, and then suffer endless nights of regret over their lack of judgement.

hahaha i think a dictatorship would suit you just fine.... :-)

you are wasting you time trying to convince me scorpio... nothing on this earth will ever make me think that people should govern their lives or make their choices as dictated by a book of fables or a few despot leaders that have never had an original thought in their lives..
That's an unclear generalisation. Do you mean to say that not all people should govern their lives or make their choices as dictated by a book, meaning that everyone should be given the right to follow said book or not, or do you mean to say that all people should not govern their lives or make their choices as dictated by a book, meaning that everyone should be dictated to not be allowed the free choice to make their own decisions over how they want to live their lives?

If it is the former, that everyone should have the right to choose how to live their life, including the right to choose to be a JW, then I am in agreement with you, and there is nothing that I would be convincing you of.

If it is the latter, that everyone should be dictated to not be given the freedom of choice to be a JW, then you would be describing a dictatorship.

RE Msg: 59 by try1more:
scorpio

on your profile you claim you're not religious.
on here you claim to be a jew.
I'm both. The word "non-religious" used to mean "someone who isn't currently practising most of the practises that their religion requires, which is my current state.

I think you are thinking of someone who ascribes to having no connection to any religion.

and you're acting more of a zealot than any jehova's witness thats ever knocked on my door.

personally i think you are trolling.
and it's not got anything to do with the thread.
That's probably because I started giving blood, and I found out that in the UK, most people don't givbe blood. According to the UK blood donation website, only 4 out of every hundred people give blood.

Yet, I know lots of Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists, and yet none of them have any religious or moral objections to blood donation. The only group that I know that talk about any objection to blood donation is JWs. Yet they are only 0.22% of the UK population according to their figures, and the UK population has increased by over 2 million since then.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/statistics/wholereport.htm

Even taking a seriously conservative estimate, that still leaves 95.78% of the population, or over 59 million people at current population figures.

However, take a look at the stocks of blood. I'm lucky that I'm O+. Judging by the graphs, I wouldn't want to be AB-, or B-.
http://www.blood.co.uk/StockGraph/stocklevelstandard.aspx

I've spoken to the nurses at the blood bank. From what they've said, it appears that we are usually running low. I just don't want to think that your children would die because we run out of blood.

But I'll take what you said on board. I've made my point. I will still continue to donate as long as I am able to. If most people don't wish to donate, then it's their choice. I'm just glad that my blood group is O+, and there are plenty of donors for O+.
 try1more
Joined: 12/16/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 1/16/2011 10:55:27 PM
scorpio

understood. you've seen the light and want to educate everyone else as to the error of their ways.
what you fail to realise is that many of those that say it's against their beliefs really don't care or know if it is or not.
it's just a stock answer meaning end of subject!!!
if you started arguing with someone in the street to persuade them to donate, you could find yourself in a bit of trouble.

jw's are only against receiving "whole" blood, including their own unless it is routed in a closed circuit, as i understand it fractions are down to the individual.
(there may one or two exceptions to this)
i know some jw's, one is an elder, you may be surprised at the amount of people including doctors, that claim falsely to be jw's because they don't want to "receive" blood.

i think you really need to make your mind up whether or not you are jewish, you cant be both.
your right! mine says non religious, like everyone i am of course religious, your religion is defined by your actions, talk is cheap as they say.
so non religious to me means not following any of the accepted religions.

anyway thanks for your answer, i'll take back the troll accusation :-)
 Forrest Grump
Joined: 6/2/2007
Msg: 47
view profile
History
why would you not be a blood doner?
Posted: 1/27/2011 9:46:31 AM
Apart from the instances given in the OP, I think more people would become a blood donor if -

someone who was a friend and a blood donor (maybe in a workplace or a club) would give them some encouragement to go,

or, if a friend or relative needed a transfusion, it would bring to the need for blood transfusions to their attention. In many cases some things only become apparent when one has a personal experience.

Zeegary Msg30


Given that I wasn't alive during Victoria's reign, I have had to rely on innate knowledge to have hear of her existence - just like you and everybody else on this site...


I would imagine, just as nx rocks and scorpiomover have mentioned, everybody on this site has learned about Victoria’s reign and it had nothing to do with innate knowledge.
Show ALL Forums  > UK forums  >