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?'

18 Then these three fought their way through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David. But David would not drink it, and poured it out to the glory of the Lord;

19 And he said, 'The Lord preserve 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. And he did not want to drink it. This is what these three brave men did.

In almost the same words, we can read about this event in 2 Samuel 23:14-17.

What can be seen from here? The valiant soldiers, knowing that their king and military commander was thirsty, risked their lives to make their way through the enemy's camp and collected water for David. David did not drink the water, because he believed that the soldiers had obtained water at great risk to their lives. He compared the price of this water with the price of the lives of these warriors. Blood is a symbol of life, which is why David said: "Will I drink the blood of these men who laid down their lives? For at the risk of their own lives they brought water." Not drinking the water, David poured it out, praising God. This passage shows what valiant warriors David had, and how he treated them, with respect and care - David did not use the water delivered and did not reward his soldiers for delivering it, considering it an unjustified risk, although he spoke of the soldiers with great respect, as the Bible tells us.

The anonymous authors of the article took advantage of the similarity - both the blood of the animal killed for food and the water poured out by David poured out on the ground. A very bold parallel! Let them answer the question then. Where could David have poured the water, if he wanted to pour it out, but not on the ground? Except for a water source, but in this case there would be no need to go to the well for water. Perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses were the first to have such an idea, since in the edition of the Bible,78 where parallel passages are indicated, there is no parallel passage to verse 18 that speaks of the pouring out of blood on the ground of an animal killed for food.

In [24] immediately after the above quotation there is the following reasoning:

"Since the donor does not die, and no life is lost, why do the biblical prohibitions turn to transfusions? Let us return to the answer to the preceding question, and ask the question: Did any of the three men who came with the water for David die? No. But did David see this as an explanation that would allow him to drink the water he regarded as human blood? No. The death of the creature giving blood does not matter. The prohibition was about taking blood into the body, and this simple fact cannot be changed by inventive reasoning and subtle worldly wisdom."