|
I may not be understanding your statement, but many jurisdictions do restrict some of the rights of personhood on the impaired groups that you mention, particularly in terms of equality under the eyes of the law and personal liberty. Now these restrictions are often tempered to weigh the "best interest" of the impaired person and usually err on the side of preserving rights where possible. Guardianships and conservatorships over incapable adults are a prime example. This wasn't always the case, in the US we are still only 60 years out from the compelled sterilization of the mentally handicapped as a "societal good." I'm also not sure the argument is circular. Its more pyramidal. Personhood rests on being capable of rights and duties. The difference with chimps is that a human being is presumed to be capable of rights and duties, at least until some legal process or procedure strips some portion of that presumption away. If you think about the highest states of (living) human impairment, i.e. brain death, things definitely can get hugely complicated. Planet of the Apes rehash: It would be very interesting if they could find a chimp who was capable of some legal duty or otherwise find some simple legal duty that chimps are capable of. Watch the requirements change.
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:31 |
|