Lawsuits Seek To Turn Chimpanzees Into Legal Persons 641
sciencehabit writes "This morning, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a lawsuit in a New York court in an attempt to get a judge to declare that chimpanzees are legal persons and should be freed from captivity. The suit is the first of three to be filed in three New York counties this week. They target two research chimps at Stony Brook University and two chimps on private property, and are the opening salvo in a coordinated effort to grant 'legal personhood' to a variety of animals across the United States. If NhRP is successful in New York, it would upend millennia of law defining animals as property and could set off a 'chain reaction' that could bleed over to other jurisdictions, says Richard Cupp, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and a prominent critic of animal rights. 'But if they lose it could be a giant step backward for the movement. They're playing with fire.'"
food (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chimps are no more legal persons than corporations are. Oh wait...
You may think it troll, flame bait, etc, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
...if such a thing passes, am I the only one who sees a potential push for marriage laws to be adapted similarly?
Before you freak out totally, I'm not necessarily referring to anything involving humans in the mix, but think of such things as racehorse/purebred animal breeding and etc.
Could become one hell of a can of worms... (oh, wait, that brings up another thought - are worms eventually getting rights too?)
Only temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
free them and release them where? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where exactly do they plan on releasing these chimps at? NYC? These animals likely cannot be returned to the wild and would likely face certain death in the wilderness, or the urban jungle for that matter....
Re:Only temporary (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't as simple as it seems on the surface.
A bigger risk (Score:5, Insightful)
This decision will also be used precedence by the machines to decide how humans should be treated post-singularity. Choose wisely.
Re:Only temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps but it would open up all other kinds of questions about things like the buying and selling of the animal (slavery), using the animals in entertainment settings or medical testing without concent.
Laws prohibiting cruelty to animals should be sufficient to prevent any problems for the situations you mention.
Rights have no meaning without responsibilities; animal rights are a contradiction in terms.
Re:food (Score:0, Insightful)
so does that mean that when a mountain lion kills a deer then it should be tried for murder?
Sorry, we're predators, as much as you may want to deny it's true. For every argument you throw that we're not supposed to eat meat, I can throw an equally valid one on why we're not supposed to eat plant matter. And to thrown in the mix, you know the game "fat or pregnant"? I've got another version that's surprisingly difficult, it's called "terminal cancer patient or vegan". Vegans really are a sickly looking bunch.
Easy Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: declare chimps person and demand they be released
Step 2: arrest now-homeless person-chimps for trespassing
Step 3: make incarcerated person-chimps do whatever they were doing before as prison labor
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's unnecessary.
If survival's at stake, I'll do what I gotta do. But if the sole reason for killing another living creature is "mmm, tasty", then something's wrong. My definition of "civilized" would include "not killing for pleasure".
Animal rights activists (Score:5, Insightful)
As humans, I believe we have a responsibility to treat creatures with a humane stewardship but this lawsuit is pushing an agenda other than humane stewardship. This is the exact kind of thing which makes people roll their eyes every time a vegetarian speaks up about the living conditions of feed-lot beef, or the destruction of bottom trawling and bycatch.
Re:Inevitable inference (Score:5, Insightful)
That's wrong. Chimps, for example, are a different species; chimps and humans can't have offspring. Their brains are obviously quite different. They are also vicious and aggressive animals.
US laws are based on Enlightenment philosophy, not religion. As such, they are a mix of social contract, classical liberalism, and human rights. Enlightenment philosophers generally recognized that animals could suffer and that humans had some moral responsibility towards them, but did not generally recognize them as persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#John_Locke.2C_Immanuel_Kant [wikipedia.org]
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
*For bob's sake, please look up the word before replying with the standard Slashdot anti-animal-sentience nerd rage.
Per Wikipedia:
Studies have shown that even plants are capable of communication, [dailymail.co.uk] and in some instances have been shown to cry out when cut, as if in pain.
So, by the Wikipedia definition, plants are sentient beings as well; do you have the same protective spirit over, say, your lawn, as you're showing for the more 'breathy, bleedy' forms of sentient life?
Personally, I don't care what other think; certain animals and plants are quite tasty, and I'm going to continue killing and devouring them to my heart's content. Don't like it? Then don't accept my invite to chow. Otherwise, mind your own fucking business, please and thanks.
Re:Jerry Was A Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, corporations are people. Extending that to chimps isn't too far a stretch.
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
> humans can live with without eating meat.
They also tend to do poorly at it since we aren't actual herbivores.
You are not a cow, no matter how much you want to be one.
Re:The Vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but sadly their votes would only be counted as 3/5 of a human citizen's :(
Corrected for historical accuracy.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The concept has been perverted by activists who hear the word 'personhood' and think they understand what it means without even bothering to read wikipedia. These are the people of which Churchill said, "the best argument against democracy is a 2 minute conversation with the typical voter." They can't think to educate themselves, they'd prefer to be outraged.
Won't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a much better argument that a fetus is a person and deserves protection under the law but the anti-abortion types haven't managed to get that idea recognized by the courts or enacted as law through the ballot box. I don't agree with their argument or what the anti-abortion types are trying to do by making it but I can still see some validity to their argument. Given that the courts have considered whether a fetus is a person from the moment of conception and said "no", I don't see the courts granting "personhood" to chimpanzees.
O/T: This does give rise to an amusing situation. The folks who push "personhood" for a fetus would probably vehemently oppose granting the same designation to a chimpanzee (fundamentalists see man as on a whole different level than other animals). Likewise, the people pushing personhood for chimps would be some of the more liberal types and would probably be very "pro-choice".
Cheers,
Dave
Re:People Eating Tasty Animals (Score:4, Insightful)
I view PETA as a core of crazy surrounded by well-intentioned and reasonable animal lovers who just don't realise how batshit insane the leaders are.
Re:food (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, experiment subjects are treated with much more care, respect and regulation, when compared to most livestock.
Re:food (Score:2, Insightful)
All of nutritional science disagrees with you.
Re:Only temporary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Vote (Score:4, Insightful)