Debate Info

14

13

Yes

No

Debate Score:	27
Arguments:	39
Total Votes:	28
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Yes (11)

No (11)

Debate Creator

JustIgnoreMe (4290)

Should people be legally required to give blood?

Mostly interested in hearing from people who consider themselves "pro-life". Giving blood is a lot less impactful to a person than a pregancy and the blood goes to save lives. Why should one be required and not the othe?

Yes Side Score: 14		No Side Score: 13
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

1 point

Giving blood should be required unless if you have a medical excuse. Not sure how giving blood is similar to a pregnancy, so I am unable to comment on that portion.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Cartman (18192)

2 points

Giving blood provides life to someone else. Pregnancy also.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

flewk (1193) Disputed

1 point

Giving blood sustains life, pregnancy creates life. Very different.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

JustIgnoreMe (4290) Clarified

1 point

medical excuse

What kind of medical excuses would be allowable - e.g. giving blood would likely cause death; might cause injury; trypanophobia?

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

flewk (1193) Clarified

1 point

You have a communicable disease. You have a blood/lymph related illness that prevents you from giving blood. You are taking medication that prevents you from giving blood. There are plenty of medical reasons.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Kalamazoo (333)

1 point

Yes, as long as it's not more than an armful. (This sentence is meaningless and is just making up the statutory fifty characters).

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

1 point

I have no idea how you can create a debate between pregnancy and donating blood - where is the argument....?

However, looking just at donating blood I believe this should be, and in our country, Australia, it is, voluntary. I would however consider an exception in times of urgent need for a specific blood type in which case it would be useful to have a register of donors and their blood type who could be called upon to donate in an emergency.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

Donating blood is voluntary and should remain so. Just as donating organs is and must remain voluntary.

I do not believe that my opinion on this topic has any ties to my opinion regarding killing babies.

Do you see some connection?

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Cartman (18192)

2 points

Donating blood would save lives. A law against abortion would save lives. Connection made. Why does one law make sense and the other doesn't?

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

flewk (1193) Disputed

2 points

Donating blood saves lives. Outlawing abortions saves lives. An apple a day saves lives. Eating healthy saves lives. Not smoking/drinking saves lives. Eugenics saves lives (eliminates inheritable diseases).

Why not make laws regarding everything that saves lives?

The tenuous connection of "saving lives" is not enough for two ideas to be similar.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192) Disputed

1 point

Why not make laws regarding everything that saves lives?

That's the topic of the debate. Welcome aboard.

The tenuous connection of "saving lives" is not enough for two ideas to be similar.

False. That is plenty to find them similar. Proof: we have considered laws against eating unhealthy, smoking, and drinking.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

flewk (1193) Disputed

1 point

False. That is plenty to find them similar. Proof: we have considered laws against eating unhealthy, smoking, and drinking.

Consideration is fine for just about anything.

The various ways these things save lives is very different. If you want to discuss giving blood as a legal requirement, that is fine.

The problem arises when you try to group it together with something else. If you wish the two to be considered the same legislative-wise, you must first establish the connection before making an argument for such a legislation. Riders are generally viewed as poison.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192)

1 point

You do realize this discussion is happening because you think that these two things are so unrelated that you can't even fathom how they can be brought up in the same conversation. You and Daver didn't say these two things aren't related enough to warrant the same legislation you both said that you didn't even see how someone could make the connection. All I am doing is reporting to you what the connection that you said you couldn't figure out.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

daver (1771) Clarified

1 point

A law prohibiting abortion is directed at not killing unborn babies. Such a law prohibits a certain action.

A law mandating an action is fundamentally doing the opposite.

The effects, as you point out, are saving lives, but one is about not doing an action, while the other compels an action.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

flewk (1193) Disputed

1 point

I am saying they are not related enough to be on the same bill other than as Riders.

I am also saying they are not related enough generally to be considered together. We are discussing this because you are proposing these two as related without anything more than the generic "saving lives" aspect as the reason. They save lives through greatly different manners. One sustains life, while the other prevents the taking of life. It is essentially an oxygen tank vs seat belts.

Also, stop grouping us together, when Daver and I are making different arguments with one similar point.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Cartman (18192) Disputed

1 point

I am saying they are not related enough to be on the same bill other than as Riders.

You brought up Riders. I want to pass an independent law about forcing blood donation because it is important on its own.

I am also saying they are not related enough generally to be considered together.

We are on a debate website. We are far from the general situation.

We are discussing this because you are proposing these two as related without anything more than the generic "saving lives" aspect as the reason.

That's because that is all I need. It's called brainstorming.

They save lives through greatly different manners. One sustains life, while the other prevents the taking of life. It is essentially an oxygen tank vs seat belts.

Your examples are not helping you. Oxygen tanks are helpful, we should have those. Seat belts are useful, we should have those. It's like you are saying we don't need oxygen tanks only because we have seat belts and they work.

Also, stop grouping us together, when Daver and I are making different arguments with one similar point.

You replied to my argument thread that I made with Daver. And, if the shoe fits, you get grouped together. I am commenting on the one similar point.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

flewk (1193) Disputed

1 point

You brought up Riders. I want to pass an independent law about forcing blood donation because it is important on its own.

That's because that is all I need. It's called brainstorming.

I brought up Riders because you were trying to pass off the two issues as similar. I am saying they are not similar enough to be on the same bill. It definitely is important on its own. If you truly wanted to present this as its own topic, you would have done so. You chose to include the part about abortions which betrays your intention.

We are on a debate website. We are far from the general situation.

We are debating common issues that often relate to everyone. So no, we are not far from the general situation.

We should also be going by the relative nature of each specific debate. This specific issue affects all individuals in a country, I am not sure why that would be seen as far from the norm.

Your examples are not helping you. Oxygen tanks are helpful, we should have those. Seat belts are useful, we should have those. It's like you are saying we don't need oxygen tanks only because we have seat belts and they work.

My example was to illustrate the differences between the issues. Just because they are both helpful does not mean they are related enough to be considered together (life saving as well). Just like you would not discuss regulations for seat belts with regulations for oxygen tanks.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

JustIgnoreMe (4290) Clarified

1 point

One thing to keep in mind (without saying that you haven't) - the point is to what extent you should be required to sustain the lives of others - not yourself.

tenuous connection

I would maintain that the principles involved (your liberty, another's life) are quite strong ones (if not the basic principles governments need balance) and are very analogous between the two. If you disagree, your challenge is to elucidate us as to why, and to provide other factors that need to be considered.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

flewk (1193) Clarified

1 point

I agree that the DOI life covers the lives of other citizens as well in terms of your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

The balance you speak of is determined by the current populace. That balance will shift as ideals shift. From my current perspective, the connection between mandated blood donations and mandated births are still fairly tenuous. Most people do not view the act of giving blood as similar or equivalent to giving birth.

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

JustIgnoreMe (4290) Clarified

1 point

That balance will shift as ideals shift.

And through discussions like these. (thanks for your participation)

still fairly tenuous

how so?

Most people do not view the act of giving blood as similar or equivalent to giving birth.

Indeed - giving birth is the far more onerous mandate - so, why would it be preferentially required over the less onerous?

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

JustIgnoreMe (4290) Clarified

1 point

It is basically a question of what role the government plays in balancing your liberty vs other life.

Multiple lives can be preserved by nothing more than a needle prick - yet can not be required, but a nine month ordeal with permanent hormonal, mental, and physical effects can?

9 years ago Side: Yes

Support Dispute Clarify

nobodyknows (745)

1 point

No, but you should be able to be paid for it. That would ensure we always have enough.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

pakicetus (1455)

1 point

No. Unless you're the reason the recipient needs the blood in the first place.

9 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

PhxDemocrat (13121)

1 point

Blood donation is a donation and should not be compulsory.

8 years ago Side: No

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

Browse More Debates