"donor" seems a little rich.
I dislike what precedent this sets in human's "use" of animals.
As a potentially dead human, I’m ok with them using animals bred to be donors for this.
I’m a Stage IV Kidney Disease patient.
This pig would have lived a very short and probably isolated life (to isolate from pathogens). No matter how well it was treated in life it was still forcibly operated on and/or killed at the end.
I don't think it should be used in this context either, it should be called something like "organ provider" which gets "harvested".
The term was previously used when describing human donors. They just kept using it because it's as good a euphemism as any.
I don't think animals can opt-in to such a system, as such I'd consider it an incorrect usage of the term.
The point is not the animal's comprehension of the term but the implication that the animal gave consent to have their organs harvested by saying "donor". If you argue that the pig cannot understand English so can't be offended the same applies that they can't understand English so cannot give affirmative consent.
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 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...?
But I guess we can go with that.
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.
I'd also contend pet breeding is a wildly misguided practice too. Attempting to maintain breed "purity" is at the very least detrimental to their health, but even a pug mutt is clearly not an animal that should exist.