2 ms·
The term wasn't new, pulled out of thin air. The term was previously used when describing human donors. They just kept using it because it's as good a euphemis
by iancmceachern 2y ago
The term wasn't new, pulled out of thin air.
The term was previously used when describing human donors. They just kept using it because it's as good a euphemism as any.
- ffsm8 2y agoAt least where I live no organs can be taken unless the patient has a donor card/explicitly allows this. This makes it into a donation, not a forceful taking, which is why they're called donors. I don't think animals can opt-in to such a system, as such I'd consider it an incorrect usage of the term.
- iancmceachern 2y agoYes but animals don't speak or care about English, so the term couldn't bother them, it's just you.
- SecurityLagoon 2y agoThat's the same as slurring at someone in a language they don't know. They don't understand what you meant so it doesn't matter right? The point is not the animal's comprehension of the term but the implication that the animal gave consent to have their organs harvested by saying "donor". If you argue that the pig cannot understand English so can't be offended the same applies that they can't understand English so cannot give affirmative consent.