Regarding the issue I want to make it more clear that my perspective is that of someone who regularly donates blood (because it feels good). I produce blood, which is arguably a form of labor. This blood is then harvested and sold, however I am not compensated but find the idea of compensation appealing. I have noticed that many people in this thread seem to be opposed to something I support and am genuinely trying to understand how I might be wrong.

I hope this didn't come off as needlessly confrontational but I feel that I was misunderstood and was compared to something I find repulsive. Which hurt my feelings a little bit.

[–] RNAi@hexbear.net 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Sorry, it was mostly for comedic purpose. A less jerk answer

In a sane world blood shouldn't be a commodity.
Even if it isn't a commodity but you still use money to incentivize donation, you run into the problem of "the law is equal for everyone, neither billionaires nor homeless can sleep under a bridge" wink wink.

Of course, blood save lives, and perhaps there are shortages of blood in countries where they don't incentivize donation with money, but I don't know if that's true.

[–] theturtlemoves@hexbear.net 8 points 6 days ago

If you live in a country where you have to pay for basic healthcare, and you have an option to be paid for a blood donation you would have done anyway, then by all means take them dollars. The issue is that people who shouldn't be donating - either because it will put them in danger (e.g. they are already too weak), or because it will put the recipient in danger (e.g. because they have some serious infection) will now be encouraged to donate. This is why pretty much every other country bans payments for blood donation.