You're arguing that drinking blood is wrong, because God's instruction against it to Noah continues through today, affirmed in Acts. The reason God had against it is that drinking blood makes an attempt to participate (gain life from?) in the life of the creature whose blood is being consumed.
You believe that blood has this meaning because you take a sacramental and "real presence" view of the blood of the last supper.
so restated:
>1 We have command from God against consuming blood
>2 Drinking blood always constitutes idolatry
>3 The significance of the blood/wine of the last supper can be applied to natural blood of other creatures (people or animal)
Correct me if I'm wrong about your position.
I think you're wrong on all points, let me explain why.
>1 & 2
We do not have a standing instruction from God against consuming blood. In Acts 10 and 11 the dietary restrictions for those in the faith are removed, symbolizing the opening of the gospel to all nations. This was only a typological relationship, not a mystical force around blood.
James recommends telling the gentiles to avoid violating this OT rule about blood in Acts 15, but in 1 Corinthians 8 Paul teaches that such abstinence from food associated with idols is really only for the benefit of the consciences of weak Christians, as it could be a stumbling block. Idols can't actually do anything, and food sacrificed to idols can't actually do anything against you; to include consuming blood.
>4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
>5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
>6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
>7 However nPost too long. Click here to view the full text.