|
Smudgie Buggler posted:How is a chimpanzee any less capable of bearing, much less fulfilling, a legal duty than a newborn baby? Maybe you are right about this, but at the end of the day the baby is Human. And like it or not that is the most important argument you can make as regards personhood.
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Is it? A species is just a (very useful) category of organisms made up by scientists. Why does it matter particularly when we are talking about rights? And it doesn't seem to worry the court so much. Without having read the full judgement, if the argument is that chimps cannot bear or fulfil a legal duty and are therefore not persons, the obvious answer should be "neither can some humans." The argument does not rest on whether or not you can fulfill a legal duty, it is solely that they are not Human. e: Also drawing on cases concerning slavery of black people to legally justify granting personhood to apes is horrendously insulting. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
kordavox posted:In all seriousness, we still confer personhood on individuals who are severely mentally retarded. If a chimp is more intelligent that, say, the most mentally retarded person on earth does the chimp deserve personhood? Because its not a human. Why would you need any more reason than that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 12:30
|
|