CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
13
Yes No
Debate Score:16
Arguments:22
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (3)
 
 No (9)

Debate Creator

JustIgnoreMe(4290) pic



Can you be mandated to give blood?

People who recover from COVID are donating blood in the hope that it could help others.
If a little of your blood might save lives, could the government legally [EDIT: in the U.S.] require you to produce it?

Yes

Side Score: 3
VS.

No

Side Score: 13

Interesting question, but I believe it has a fairly obvious answer. The government can do pretty much anything it wants. What the government has to analyse in any given situation is whether getting its own way will be worth the potential repercussions (i.e. rioting, revolt, being voted out etc...).

I think this has a lot more scope as a moral question. Should the government be allowed to do it? Then it becomes a really good debate.

I would agree with your own sentiment that no, they should not be allowed to do it. By all means encourage people; even offer them a reward. But forcing someone to do it against their own will oversteps the bounds of what, in my opinion, is reasonable.

Side: Yes
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

I do think the should question is a good one, I just wanted this one to be about the extant rules since I also intend to use it as a vector to the abortion discussion. So I should also specify "in the U.S."

As to the current situation, I do not think that it would be straightforwardly legal under normal circumstances since it would be protected by many of the same cases that protect privacy generally (Union Pacific v. Botsford, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc.)

But I do imagine cases where it could be less clear - e.g. what if the government drafted someone into service and then demanded it?

This case of a judge giving people the choice of donating blood in leiu of other penalties is also interesting:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nn99k7/can-the-government-force-poor-people-to- give-blood-to-stay-out-of-jail-1020

Side: Yes
BurritoLunch(6607) Clarified
1 point

So I should also specify "in the U.S."

Well, I'm definitely no expert in US law, but what I would expect is that, if the government has the legal power to draft you into the military, it has the legal power to mandate you to give blood. Doesn't the president have special privilege to issue executive orders? If so then that answers the question regardless of any legal challenges, because they would all come after the fact.

Side: Yes
2 points

I don't really know if mandating can be done, I really don't think so. However, if you MUST be mandated in an emergency, to help save lives, and don't, you should die.

Side: No
BurritoLunch(6607) Clarified
1 point

I don't really know if mandating can be done

Brother, if they can mandate you to serve in the army during a war they can mandate you to give blood during a pandemic.

Side: Yes
Chinaman(2996) Clarified
1 point

You Stupid Party Parrot you want mandating and your Party are not Fascist what a real dumb ass you are. Stupid go tie your slip on shoes.

Side: Yes
2 points

could the government legally [EDIT: in the U.S.] require you to produce it?

Hello Just:

The 5th Amendment requires due process of law. They can't take a life without due process.. They can't take property without it. They can't arrest you without it, and they can't search you without it.

Therefore, it would be my view that the US Government cannot take your blood.

excon

PS> I recommend the book by Peter McWilliams entitled, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do".. It speaks to the absolute absurdity of consensual crimes in a free country.

https://www.amazon.com/Aint-Nobodys-Business-You-Consensual/dp/ 192976717X

Side: No
1 point

(for the sake of argument)

What type of process would be due?

What if the government offered just compensation (similar to eminent domain)?

Side: No
excon(15408) Disputed
1 point

What if the government offered just compensation (similar to eminent domain)?

Hello again, J:

If the compensation is TRULY just, then nothing is "taken", and nobody's rights are violated.. However, the word "just" implies a meeting of the minds. If they can't agree on a price, the government can't take it.

That's not to say the government OBEYS the Constitution.. I'm merely telling you my interpretation of Due Process..

excon

Side: No
Chinaman(2996) Clarified
1 point

We got us a Black Democrat Jew worrying about the Constitution. Now that is very surprising coming from a Confused Dummy such as yourself.

Side: Yes
Chinaman(2996) Clarified
1 point

5th Amendment : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Dummy explain how confused your Dumb Ass is.

Side: Yes
1 point

The 5th Amendment requires due process of law. They can't take a life without due process.

Probably a lot of dead fetuses that wish you had been defending them, eh Con?

Side: Yes
1 point

The 5th says that the government can't take life without due process not that people can't take life in self-defense.

Side: No

The government can force you to do unwanted things with your body, but that would be wrong, for them to do. Look at the push, for forced vaccines.

Side: No

If not, can you be mandated to give birth??

Side: No
1 point

If not, can you be mandated to give birth??

No, but you can be mandated to allow trained doctors to cut the other person out of you.

Side: Yes
2 points

Forced gestation, is rape. Prolife, is prorape. You don't have the right, to my body.

Side: No
1 point

No. you can't

Side: No