Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Discussion Forum
cricket246

Animals and health decision?!

Recommended Posts

Okay, I've always looked at Jehovah's laws as having a broad application but recently met some varying views and now I'm somewhat confused. :confused:

 

Jehovah's laws say to abstain from blood (meaning no blood transfusions) and not to kill anyone (not commit murder, abortion, etc.)

 

I have always viewed as being wrong to abort animals from a pregnant animal (vet's office, etc.) or to allow an animal to have a blood transfusion if they are undergoing surgery but have spoken with several others an now I'm confused.... Some will take their pregnant animals to get spayed and if they're pregnant have the babies aborted. I was not happy and needless to say openly disagreed when asked my opinion, but now I don't know how to feel or what to think....... I am now trying to find some answers as I have some animals I'm caring for and I don't want to do anything that's wrong in Jehovah's eyes.

 

Any articles or info  would truly be appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortion is not specifically mentioned, but I feel that the principles of this article about blood may apply to all matters where we have clear Scriptural direction.

 

*** w64 2/15 pp. 127-128 Questions From Readers ***
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?


The psalmist declared at Psalm 119:97: “How I do love your law! All day long it is my concern.” Such a love of God’s law and a concern for it would surely cause a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God’s law whatsoever. God’s law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Acts 15:20, 28, 29) Christians certainly would not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah’s law on blood. Love for God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that response from them in matters pertaining to blood.


Since God’s law on blood has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah’s law on blood. They do not obey God’s law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right. Furthermore, because of their love of God’s law they will not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it with seeming impunity.


How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body’s vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian.


In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God.—Eccl. 12:13, 14; Jas. 4:17.


What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.


Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:21.


But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God’s law on blood would not use it. True, according to the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14) The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would serve as fertilizer. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of God’s Word.


Servants of God have been told in the Scriptures what is to be done with blood. So they know that they would be held responsible by Jehovah for any misuse of blood over which they might have control. What is more, because they love God they are prompted to observe the laws and principles of his Word. Thus they are moved to keep Jehovah’s law on blood even in ways that might appear to some to be insignificant. They do not view compliance with it as an encumbrance, for they hold in remembrance the words of 1 John 5:3, which states: “For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Natasha, we tend to feel rejection when we hear the term "abortion" because we link it to killing human beings. Abortion of a human fetus is murder. But we need to keep things in balance. Abortion of animals is killing animals. Is killing animals wrong? Not necessarily.

 

Jehovah gave man authority over the animals. For example, we may kill animals for food, for their skin or other parts of their bodies, or because they are a danger or a plague. A Christian might decide with a good conscience to put to sleep an animal that is suffering. The same principle applies for the yet unborn animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had to euthanize several of our dogs over the years.  Unbearably difficult to make that decision.  Cancer, seizures and naughing on their tongue forced the decision! I know this is a touchy subject and Jesus did not die for our animals but l

believe when Jenovah says he will satisfy our desires I will have these babies that I miss so badly  --their personalities instilled in my new pets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article Stavro quoted above is the same article we were directed us to when we had this question a few years ago. Our girl had a torn CCL (ACL in humans), and the non-surgical treatment method we were offered involved the drawing of her blood, to which medications would be added and then re-injected. We didn't find anything in our research and asked our COBE. He also didn't know, and contacted a brother from the HLC. This brother directed us to the above article and suggested we call Bethel to confirm that was still the current understanding. As it was, we asked the vet to do the treatment without the use of blood. Although he looked at us funny, he complied, and used a different solution to mix the medications with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys thats very clear and exactly how Ive felt all along! Now im doing some personal reflection with the spay and abortion issue as i am trying to help take care of 4 cats now. There has been over 10 cats seen on our property, some neighbors cats others are strays. 1 died, and a nice lady took a momma and 3 kittens to find them homes, now im caring for 2-4. One is fixed and now 3 to go and i dont know if two of them are pregnant or not. Anyone here know how to tell if a female cat is pregnant lol u can dm me with some tips if u do thanks again everyone i really appreciate the help :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciated Sister Sylvie's post for many reasons, thanks for your post. (tu)

While animals are not be viewed as more precious than humans, what some people might not realize is that the blood of animals is still sacred in God's view - because the animals blood represents life. And for this reason an animal's blood should not be used in a non-sacred way, like a transfusion. Here are some articles Sister Natasha for you so that you can refer to in case someone you know needs confirmation about God's view on the blood of animals.

 

Quote

 

*** g90 10/22 p. 15 The Most Precious Fluid in the World ***
The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood”—not literally, of course, since the Bible also says that the living organism itself is a soul. Rather, the life of all souls is so inextricably tied up with and sustained by the blood in them that blood is appropriately viewed as a sacred fluid representing life.

 

*** w09 6/1 p. 26 He Is Considerate of Our Limitations ***
The atoning value of a sacrificial animal was in its blood, which God viewed as sacred. (Leviticus 17:11) 
 

*** w91 2/15 p. 16 pars. 3-4 “You Were Bought With a Price” ***
Since Noah’s day, true worshipers have viewed blood as sacred. (Genesis 9:4-6) Blood plays an important part in the life process, for the Bible says that “the soul [or life] of the flesh is in the blood.” (Leviticus 17:11) So the Mosaic Law required that when an animal was sacrificed, its blood be poured out before Jehovah. At times blood was also placed upon the horns of the altar. Clearly, the atoning power of a sacrifice was in its blood. (Leviticus 8:15; 9:9) “Nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”—Hebrews 9:22.
Little wonder, then, that under the Law, any misuse of blood was punishable by death! (Leviticus 17:10) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 5:17 PM, Stavro said:

What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.


Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:21.


Huh. While I would certainly not feed a pet food that has had any form of blood added, infused or transfused into it after being extracted from another, some of this information is 'new' to me despite it's age and has me feeling very conflicted. I've advocated that people feed their pets a 'biologically appropriate raw food' diet, whatever Jehovah designed them to eat in their natural state. Say you are feeding your pet such as a cat, dog, ferret, snake, etc a whole, dead animal such as a baby mouse or chick, which has been gassed with CO2, passes out and dies painlessly, and is then flash frozen. It contains blood, but is it now a manmade product, no longer a natural whole food? It is not intended for man's consumption, and has not had blood added to it. It is blood which has not been poured out. However, wasn't the command for blood to be poured out only given to humans who slaughtered animals for their own consumption. and not to the animals? Has he not given animals the right to eat blood as he gave them flesh for food, as this is necessary for their health and survival as things are?

Genesis 9 contrasts man and animals, where Jehovah put the fear of man into animals. He allowed man to eat animals for food, but man must not eat blood. He held both man and animal accountable for shedding man's blood. (Genesis 9:2-6) A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are now given into your hand. 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. 5 Besides that, I will demand an accounting for your lifeblood. I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother. 6 Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image He made man.

(Deuteronomy 12:15, 16) “But whenever you desire it* (*Or “in all the desire of your soul.”), you may slaughter and eat meat, according to the blessing that Jehovah your God has given you in all your cities. The unclean person and the clean person may eat it, as you would eat a gazelle or a deer. 16 But you must not eat the blood; you should pour it out on the ground like water. (Leviticus 17:10) “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. (Exodus 22:31) “You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal. You should throw it to the dogs.

It used to be that people would only ever feed their pets raw or live food, the Israelites included. It worries me if this article is actually saying that it's wrong to give an animal a dead animal for food? My mom's cat is an aged but still active hunter who brings home bloody birds, mice, and rabbit carcasses... I'm happy that she's much healthier eating some actual food rather than only kibble. However, there is much more risk to the pet itself from bite infections or transmitting parasites to humans (especially toxoplasmosis). She doesn't take well to raw meat that she hasn't hunted, things like chicken hearts or livers which have been bled for human consumption. I don't know how to feel about this. :<

BTW: The WoL has some good articles on pets... https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004120 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200274429


  Edited by Myew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Animals eat blood all the time.  Every day.  While I wouldn't purposefully add blood of any sort to the food, I don't give the ingredients in the food a second thought.  And my son has a snake that I've regularly fed live rats to... blood and all.

 

I've always believed the prohibition of blood was meant for humans, not animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Myew said:

It used to be that people would only ever feed their pets raw or live food, the Israelites included. It worries me if this article is actually saying that it's wrong to give an animal a dead animal for food?

 

The article specifically notes "a container of dog food or some other animal food", which is typically heavily processed and has ingredients artificially added. If the bood is eaten through live or unbled meat, the blood would be incidental to the food itself, not something fed to the animal deliberately.

 

*** it-1 p. 345 Blood ***
At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) 

 

*** w82 6/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
▪ Would it be wrong for a Christian, under medical treatment, to allow leeches to be applied to him to draw off some blood?
Christians should strive to manifest that they appreciate the sacredness of blood. (Acts 15:28, 29) Accordingly, if blood is removed from the body, it should be disposed of, comparable to the Israelites’ pouring blood out on the ground.
At times doctors may have medical grounds for advising that blood be removed (phlebotomy). For example, with the blood disease polycythemia vera a person has excessive red blood cells (the opposite of anemia). The blood, thick with red cells, may produce clots, increasing the threat of strokes or heart attacks. There are various ways of managing this, but sometimes the choice treatment is venesection, drawing off some blood from a vein. The counsel of God’s Word would not rule this out so long as the removed blood was disposed of. Similarly, many Christians have felt conscientiously able to permit small quantities of blood to be taken for medical tests, realizing that once the tests were completed the blood would be discarded.
However, though leeches parasitically feed on blood in their natural state at present, it would not be proper for a Christian to permit leeches to draw his blood. (Proverbs 30:15) Even where this was urged for medical reasons and the leeches would later be disposed of, the use of leeches would involve deliberately feeding blood to these creatures. That would conflict with the Bible’s indication that blood, being sacred and representing life, should be disposed of if it is removed from a body.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stavro said:

if blood is removed from the body, it should be disposed of, comparable to the Israelites’ pouring blood out on the ground.

This is completely out of date and shouldn't be quoted.  We know in the KM about conscience matters that some witnesses will accept blood to leave their body and reenter it.

 

I'm sure the same goes for leeches.  We should remember the principle behind our stance on rejecting whole blood transfusions:  God views it as sacred.  But it's not a magical thing that should lead anyone to anything bordering on superstitious. I mean, if a brother gets a nose bleed, and the blood drips onto his lips and he swallow it, should it bother his conscience?  Of course not--especially if he has filled out his blood card and carries it around, then he is showing respect for Jehovah's viewing blood as a sacred thing.

 

It's true that we've learned in recent years just how crazy and unbalanced the world's ideas about blood transfusions are--especially among some 'wise, learned' physicians--but there's no need to become radical about the physical organ or liquid bodily tissue which is our blood. The important thing is that we each recognize Jehovah's view of it, and try and deeply instil in our heart the same appreciation for it and especially what it represents, rather than getting scared or obsessive about every drop of blood!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Brandon said:

This is completely out of date and shouldn't be quoted.  We know in the KM about conscience matters that some witnesses will accept blood to leave their body and reenter it.

 

 

1

I question your saying this shouldn't be quoted. Who is the judge here?

It is part of our base information on keeping free from blood. A caveat pointing out that we have more up to date information available should be enough. Citing the KM would even be better.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also feed a raw food diet. That meat, in my opinion, is no different than the meat we eat with respect to having been bled. It just isn't cooked. However, I will not add blood to their food, or allow the administration of a blood transfusion, or misuse blood in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brandon said:

This is completely out of date and shouldn't be quoted.

 

If we were speaking of cell-salvage, dialysis, or other procedures that maintain an 'unbroken connection' to the owner of the blood (thus it is not "removed from the body"), there have indeed been clarifications of the matter. But even in these cases, blood cannot be removed and stored for extended periods of time.

 

But we are not speaking of human medical procedures of placing blood back into one's own body, we are speaking of removing the blood of an animal or human, and giving that blood to other animals as food. Regarding that matter, the quoted article makes it absolutely clear that blood separated from the body should not be used for other purposes, including being fed to animals.

 

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

I'm sure the same goes for leeches.

 

Have you heard this in writing, or from the branch, HLC, CO, or other reliable source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the original topic of abortion in animals: I have not seen any articles on it, but there are two about pets under Euthenasia.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200272023
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003407#h=1:0-9:487
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102004122#h=24:239-25:488

Personally, I would think it would be kinder to just let them have the babies and find homes or another way to take care of them.
My opinion is to simply prevent the situation from happening in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2017-11-13 at 6:17 PM, Stavro said:

The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of.

21 hours ago, Stavro said:

the quoted article makes it absolutely clear that blood separated from the body should not be used for other purposes

 

I can agree that feeding anything with blood is wrong, but the idea we formerly had that any blood withdrawn from our bodies must be disposed of is where the old WT you quoted is no longer accurate;  besides the obvious blood tests and so forth, the well known SAVE kingdom ministry chart from 2006, November, page 6, says that some Christians may rightfully accept that their blood could be withdrawn, fractioned, and some of one of the fractions be used to prepare a medical treatment which would then be put back into the witness patient's body:

lwKR03.jpg

PLASMAPHERESIS: Blood is withdrawn and filtered to remove plasma. A plasma substitute is added, and the blood is returned to the patient.

PLATELET GEL; AUTOLOGOUS (MEANING “MADE FROM YOUR OWN BLOOD”): Some blood is withdrawn and concentrated into a solution rich in platelets and white cells. This solution is applied on surgical sites or wounds.


  Edited by Brandon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brandon said:

I can agree that feeding anything with blood is wrong, but the idea we formerly had that any blood withdrawn from our bodies must be disposed of is where the old WT you quoted is no longer accurate

 

This article is still being cited by the branch regarding the use of leeches, so the principles are still intact. The fact of the matter is that if blood is removed from the body, human or animal, it is not to be used for transfusions or as food, even for leeches.

 

While there are provisions for a human's blood to reintroduced into their body, these medical procedures do not involve transfusions, mixing it into food, or leaving it in unbled meat, so these medical procedures are simply irrelevant to this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stavro said:

This article is still being cited by the branch regarding the use of leeches,

I'll admit I'm not on HLC nor excessively knowledgeable on all medical procedures listed on jw.org/en/medical-library but I can't help but wonder why Jehovah would create leeches if the only thing they do in life is something that violates the sanctity of blood.  Seems odd, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The w00 10/15 p31 Questions From Readers is worth looking at. Some salient points:

 

The mosaic law stipulation on pouring out blood always referred to the blood of another creature, not our own. The article italicised the same words.

 

We do not predonate our blood for later transfusion, but regarding all other matters the article stated "A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy."

 

The Slave have given us tremendous latitude when it comes to autologous procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

JWTalk 19.10.11 by Robert Angle (changelog)