Which is most Sacred - Blood or Life?

Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for their refusal to accept blood transfusions even when that refusal will result in death, either for themselves or their children.  The following is a direct quote from the JW.ORG website;

This is a religious issue rather than a medical one. Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29) Also, God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.

In another article on the same website the organisation states;

5 What about the life of an unborn child? Well, according to the Mosaic Law, causing the death of a baby in its mother’s womb was wrong. Yes, even such a life is precious to Jehovah. (Read Exodus 21:22, 23; Psalm 127:3.) This means that abortion is wrong.

They are referring to Gods command that if two men are fighting and they accidentally knock a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry the men would be executed for the crime of manslaughter.

So they refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds and also accept that human life is sacred to God - surely these two views are incompatible?

Let's deliberately make this emotive, let's use a young child as an example.  In the bible if a man accidentally killed an unborn child he was to lose his life as punishment - this was a law from God.

So, in the event that a child requires a blood transfusion to save their life, and a child's life is so sacred to the Creator, why do Witnesses believe that obedience to Gods law on abstinence from blood outweighs obedience to the sanctity of life?

Their answer:

'...no one can say for certain that a patient will die because of refusing blood or will live because of accepting it.'

Even by Witness standards this argument is both ridiculous and disrespectful.  It disrespects those Witnesses who have died after refusing a blood transfusion because it basically argues that their sacrifice was pointless as they would die anyway.  It also demonstrates arrogance towards the medical profession who have used blood to save millions of lives.

It is a ridiculous statement because it is the equivalent of making the claim that in a life threatening situation the certainty that a patient lived or died cannot be attributed to a medical procedure or lack of it.

It also ignores the glaring question of: What about the sanctity of life?  Their response is that if a person stays faithful to Jehovah even if it means their death, he will reward them by resurrecting them to a paradise earth.

So why, if there was a promise of resurrection, did God feel the need to kill a man who accidentally caused a miscarriage?  Why did he not issue a death warrant to those that disobeyed his command on blood?

In the end, if both life and blood are sacred logic would dictate that life takes precedence.  

Of course, this approach would be the least controversial and would not generate the publicity that the organisation craves.  Logic, it seems, is less attractive than column inches.