In this context, it means "the one who gives". While the general impression is that such giving is voluntary, it's not an absolute requirement of the definition.
This is a normal usage of language and not some attempt to wiggle around meaning. If this somehow makes you uncomfortable, you should remember that, if you eat meat, or otherwise consume any sort of animal product, or if you have ever done so, then aforementioned animal was straight up killed, humanely or sometimes inhumanely, to make that product.
We domesticate animals to make our lives easier through the usage of their byproducts and this is just one of those usages. Yes, an animal died, but it wasn't killed without reason or justification.
We don't live in a Star Trek world where one can wave some sort of device and the person is magically healed. People are working to get there and maybe someday they will succeed, but until then, imperfect means are all we have.
It's either that or dead humans. Which do you prefer?
I'm very confused here, I'm neither having an issue with taking organs from animals nor with killing them for food.
I do, technically, have an issue with our modern meat production, which ia a straight up horror show - for the animals and for the people growing them, but that's entirely unrelated to this case here.
As far as my knowledge of the word "donation" goes, it means that someone voluntarily gave something to another, and the person giving is the donor.
I'm not an authority for the English language, so maybe donation can also apply to a scenario in which something is taken with no active consent. In that case the term would also apply to theft though, that makes me kinda doubt that...?
The TLDR explanation is that words have a denotative meaning, what the word actually means, and a connotative meaning, whis are the ideas and concepts that surround the word. Even though the word usage may seem like a lie, most people understand what is meant.
I read through it from top to bottom but still feel that this usage of donor is severely stretching it. All the examples there make sense to me, and none of them go against the core definition of the world their using to explain the concept.
As far as I know, the term donor is defined to mean that the entity voluntarily gave something. Using it in a context without the entity being willing still seems to be invalid to me, but as I said: I'm by no means an authority on the English language
Do you not think that most people who have stopped using animal products have not already come to the conclusion that what they did was (direct or indirect) killing and they deemed it as immoral? Using this argument in an animal ethics debate is ineffective at best.
This is a normal usage of language and not some attempt to wiggle around meaning. If this somehow makes you uncomfortable, you should remember that, if you eat meat, or otherwise consume any sort of animal product, or if you have ever done so, then aforementioned animal was straight up killed, humanely or sometimes inhumanely, to make that product.
We domesticate animals to make our lives easier through the usage of their byproducts and this is just one of those usages. Yes, an animal died, but it wasn't killed without reason or justification.
We don't live in a Star Trek world where one can wave some sort of device and the person is magically healed. People are working to get there and maybe someday they will succeed, but until then, imperfect means are all we have.
It's either that or dead humans. Which do you prefer?