• ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    4 days ago

    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?

      • starik@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        4 days ago

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

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          4 days ago

          I thought it was weird it even had passages about NVidia’s DLSS5, but now we know.

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days 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.