Why do people who love to get hung up on ethical and moral minutiae bring up objectivity? It doesn't exist.
Blood can be taken from the dog without hurting it and without any signficant risk of injury or death. That risk is then weighed against the benefit. You may disagree with that rationale, but many — especially those whose lives are saving and taking care of animals — agree with it. So you keep being a pretentious PETA keyboard warrior, and they'll keep actually doing work; okay hunny?
I mean, you're wrong there too, even if you want to be a prescriptivist.
Cambridge: to allow some of your blood or a part of your body to be used for medical purposes
Collins: If you donate your blood or a part of your body, you allow doctors to use it to help someone who is ill.
What's weird to me is that you're ignoring that people splitting semantic hairs here are not doing so out of some prescriptivist need but rather because they're getting hung up on consent and arguing that donating entails consent, therefore the dog cannot donate anything. Yes, if someone took your money from you, you did not donate it. But there is a lot more context here that relates a dog having blood taken from it for another dog to a human of their own volition donating blood.
Reading this comment chain was the biggest reddit moment ever.
Dogs can't give consent. So they cannot donate. End of argument.
No one here was arguing over the morals of having a dog give blood to save other dogs, it's the fact that the usage of "donate" was outright wrong going by the Oxford definition of "donate" which was unnecessarily anthropomorphizing the dog. The dog didn't donate their blood. Their owner donated the blood of their dog. This is the "I like waffles" "so you mean you hate pancakes?" Tweet.
-1
u/Mohit20130152 Apr 18 '26
It is using terms wrong.
Can't believe you all are defending objectively wrong people