9 Aaron's sons offered him blood, and he dipped his finger in the blood, and put it on the horns of the altar, and poured out the rest of the blood at the foot of the altar...

18 And he slew the ox and the ram, which were of the people, for a peace offering; And Aaron's sons offered him blood, and he sprinkled it on the altar round about

Then, for example, you can reread the entire 16th chapter of the book of Leviticus and so on. As you can see from what you have read, there is a discreteness of operations, that is, there is storage for some time. Aaron slaughtered the calf, and his sons drained the blood and offered it to him.

Since the issue of blood storage has lost its relevance, therefore, the principle prohibiting the preservation of spilled blood from the body, and the principle of continuity of extracorporeal circulation lose their relevance.

***

The most important thing to note. All that has been quoted above refers to the blood of an animal that has been killed for the purpose of sacrifice or consumption.

Can the above be extended to human blood? First, the murder of a man by a man is in itself a sin. Secondly, if the above rules are extended to man, then it is necessary to assume that the man was killed for sacrifice or for food. The first is unequivocally an idolatrous sacrifice in the most grievous form and is an abomination in the eyes of God. The second is cannibalism, an obvious sinful act that is not even worth discussing, otherwise than a clouding of the mind.

What grounds do Jehovah's Witnesses give to justify their rule regarding animal blood to human blood as well?

"Do not these prohibitions about blood apply only to the blood of animals, and not to human blood? Of course, Jehovah did not tell people to drain the blood from human bodies before eating them, since he did not permit cannibalism. Therefore, when animal blood was considered primarily in the above scriptures, one should not overlook the fact that the legal prohibitions were against all blood; they were not to eat "any blood," "blood from any body." This includes human flesh. The blood of animals was for the "cleansing of your souls." Yet Paul showed that this blood of the sacrificial animals did not make any real atonement, but only symbolized the blood of Jesus. If ordinary animal blood was sacred, how much more sacred is human blood! To prove that the prohibition also applied to human blood, consider what happened when three men risked their lives to get water for the thirsty David: "But David would not drink it, and poured it out to the glory of the LORD, and said, God save me, that I may do this! Will I drink the blood of these men who laid down their lives? For at the risk of their own lives they brought water" (1 Chronicles 11:17-19). Since David compared the water obtained at the risk of human life to human blood, he applied God's law on all blood, namely, he poured it out on the ground. "Only you shall not eat blood: you shall pour it out on the ground as water" (Deuteronomy 12:16, 23, 24)." [24].

We will not comment on the proposals after the question, because it is very difficult to comment on something that has neither logic nor common sense. Let's go straight to the "proof" - to a quote from the Bible.

The First Book of Chronicles speaks of King David, of his deeds, of the people who surrounded him. Chapter 11 specifically describes the prowess of the soldiers around David. It goes on to say:

1 Chronicles 11:16-19

16 David was then in a fortified place, and the Philistines' guard was then in Bethlehem.

17 And David was very thirsty, and he said, 'Who shall give me water to drink out of the well of Bethlehem which is by the gate?'