Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court 385
sciencehabit writes Chimpanzees are back in court. Judges in New York State heard the first in a series of appeals attempting to grant "legal personhood" to the animals. The case is part of a larger effort by an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) to free a variety of creatures—from research chimps to aquarium dolphins—from captivity. If the case is successful, it could grant personhood to chimps throughout the state.
Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:2, Funny)
1 poo sling for yes, 2 for no
Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:4, Funny)
You most definitely do NOT want to be present for a filibuster.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I like monkeys.
I like monkeys. The pet store was selling them for five cents a piece. I thought that odd since they were normally a couple thousand. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.
I herded them i
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That was my thought. I think the corporate ruling is insane and compared to that this is super sensible.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean by that? Look, I understand the ruling on corporate personhood, but how would you change the law and what would that change in the law mean?
Specifically, what is happening that you dislike as a result of corporate personhood? I just want to understand where you are coming from here. Please be specific.
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations are artificial legal constructs which allow special privileges (tax and liability advantages, mainly) to their owners. Since they're constructs of law, they're subject to legal regulation. Corporations are not people, and do not have rights. No right to free speech, no right to vote, etc.
That does not infringe on any individual rights - people still have the right and ability to band together for group speech, etc. They simply can't do it and also gain the special privileges given to corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
... the court dicision is based on the only rational interpretation of the law. What is more you are dodging the question of freedom of association.
You clearly view the corporations as undeserving of influence over civic processes. Very well, but what legal distinction would be you make between a corporation and any other lobbying group?
Mother's against drunk driving? Artificial legal construct.
People for the ethical treatment of animals? Artificial legal construct.
World Wildlife Foundation? Artificial lega
Re: (Score:3)
As to corporations, I said be specific and please tell me why I can judge the merits of your suggestions. Being vague here makes it impossible for me to understand precisely where you are coming from.
I am honestly trying to understand you and what you find as important as a person and another mentality. Please take this opportunity to share your thoughts with another mind. We may find common ground. We may add to each each other's uniqueness. We may contrast and compete. But simply refusing to engage robs u
Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not asking for academic citations, intellectual anal palyp. I'm asking for you to explain yourself clearly.
Being lazy and vague gives no one any opportunity to know what you're talking about or judge whether in fact you're making any sense.
You could be a total and complete moron or a total and complete genius... and because you were vague and lazy no one could tell the difference.
So here I come into your comment asking you nicely "hey, please be clear"... to which you respond "this isn't an academic paper with parenthetical references, so I don't even need to be coherent!"...
Which is just stupid.
Last chance... be clear or I have to make some rather obvious assumptions. Your choice.
Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not the person you are responding to but I'll chip in.
The idea that a corporate person should have freedom of speech is, I think, a problem. For example, it allows them to spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns. This is undemocratic. Corporations don't get to vote or stand for election, but are allowed to have huge influence over politics through money. Since they are not real people they often act without morals or any sense of human decency, and try to get politicians with a similar disposition elected and the law change to reflect their myopic obsession with profit above all else.
Re: (Score:3)
Explain why a corporation should be forbidden from participating in a political cause but the World Wildlife Federation should be allowed to participate? What is the legal difference?
This gets back to basic freedom of association and freedom of speech. The corporation is made up of and represents people just like Save the Whales, Planned Parenthood, or the Teamsters.
If a corporation cannot speak politically then no association should be allowed to speak either. And that means the only people allowed to spea
Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google. (Score:4, Informative)
Whenever a law would restrict a fundamental right of the individual, such as the freedom of speech, the state must provide compelling reason to violate right and pass the strict scrutiny test. Unders strict scrutiny the law or policy is presumed unconstitutional and the burden of proof lies on the state to show that the policy is necessary in order to achieve a state interest. If proved necessary it must demonstrate that the policy is narrow in scope and not overly broad so as to ensure minimal impact against the right.
What a lot of people, yourself include, misunderstand about Citizens United is that it was never about granting "personhood" to corporations. The ruling only showed that being a member of a group was not sufficient grounds to deny an individual their rights. It's been nearly two centuries since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in which SCOTUS first affirmed that being a member of a group was insufficient grounds to deny an individual his rights. Citizens United was a ruling that simply states that all corporations should be treated equally without exemptions. Corporations are mostly thought of as organizations like Exxon or Goldman Sachs when the reality is that it also includes organizations like CBS, NBC, the Sierra Club, and Planned Parenthood.
The outcome we currently have is pretty much the only outcome which doesn't greatly violate the 1st Amendment by violating freedom of speech, press, or association, violating the 4th's protection against unreasonable searches, or violating the 14th's equal protection clause. The only ways around this is to reverse the decision on Buckley v. Valeo (1976) divorcing speech from money or introduce a constitutional amendment that explicitly grants Congress the right to regulate campaign contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
. Start by dissolving the ability of a corporation to have liability. The liability is shared by the stockholders or executive officers, prior to stock issuance.
And instantly you have destroyed your economy and way of life. What you have just described is the sole and singular reason corporations were formed in the first place. That is to limit the risk to an investor to the amount of money they have put into it. ie the value of the stocks they hold. If liability is held by the stockholders you make it an incredibly risky venture to be involved in a business. You buy $5 of stock in McDonalds, as a result of a law suit for activities outside of your control McD
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is about whether the entity itself is considered a person, not whoever's running it.
If a corporation should be given personhood because it's run by humans, than surely cars, dolls and shoes deserve personhood too?
Go ask a Chipmanzee if it is human. Likely you'll get atleast some sort of response.
Now go ask an office building if it is human and see what response it gives you.
Quite frankly, giving a Chimpanzee personhood is slightly less insane than giving a corporation personhood.
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate personhood refers to the ability to hold a corporation liable for debts and crimes. Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm suggesting you should be able to sue the humans responsible for the crimes of a corporation and not sue either chimps or corporations as all.
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:4, Interesting)
If a person is criminal or criminally negligent (which is different from negligence), (s)he should be held accountable no matter what the role in a corporation.
Ridiculously high damage claims is an entirely different issue and, as I understand it, one that usually gets corrected by judges.
Re: (Score:3)
That's how criminal negligence already works, when's the last time a corporation was tried in court for murder?
I'm talking about enforcing contracts. My company orders a million dollars of widgets from Acme and they're never delivered. Who's responsible? I don't want to sue an individual, I'm never seeing my money back if that's the only option available. And if I did, some poor employee for Acme is going to lose their second car and probably have to sell their house.
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Which one is more likely to get them a banana republic?
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:4, Funny)
Those who believe in the right to fling feces will vote Republican.
Dead chimps and chimps being bused in from other zoos will vote Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.
Most of the First Posts at Slashdot are posted by chimps...
Re: (Score:2)
If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.
I don't think that they would necessary need to be declared legally competent persons, just because they were given personhood status. That being said, I think I agree with those who say that perhaps we need a new classification instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking about Card's Hierarchy of Foreigness will give you an idea what these people are trying to accomplish.
http://ansible.wikia.com/wiki/... [wikia.com]
They are basically trying to have chimps and dolphins reclassified as raman, not as humans, not as djur. Raman don't get citizen rights such as voting, but the non-state related parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ought to apply to them as persons.
http://www.un.org/en/documents... [un.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The law seems to fail here. We have the concept of "human", and the concept of "animal", but nothing between.
The great apes (excluding ourselves, of course), as well as some other species seem intelligent enough that we should consider them a special class of creature. Of course they lack human sophistication and intelligence, but they have the ability to think above and beyond most creatures. They seem to be able to crudely communicate using sign language (although they have great difficulty with gra
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't we treat them as we (should) treat any animal? With respect for living conditions, pain control, anxiety, food, water and shelter? With that set of guidelines, they would be treated better than we treat most humans.
Certainly in many places, animal abuse is prosecuted with more vigor than human - human abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the case of tasty animals, in which case out desire for cheap meat and susceptibility to well-funded lobbying campaigns overrules the requirement for respect and makes it ok to cram them into cages scarcely bigger than they are for their entire life. So long as the end consumer doesn't have to think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well do children get to vote? Hold office?
The state takes a protective stance toward children that it does not toward adults, because children while human are neither competent to exercise adult freedoms nor fully capable of defending themselves against adult humans. The state recognizes the human rights of children less in protecting their exercise of free rights or participation in the public sphere than by protecting them from arm and ensuring they are nurtured to some minimal standard.
Presumably the s
Re: (Score:2)
An individual can possess personhood without necessarily enjoying all the rights and privileges that are generically afforded to them. Criminals and the insane, for instance, are certainly persons, but may have many of the rights limited and some outright revoked. I can certainly see chimps or dolphins, both highly intelligent and clearly in possession of some level of sentience, deserving some level of protection that approaches those of humans. Maybe that does mean a different class of personhood, but I t
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought that Howard the Duck [wikipedia.org] was meant as an instruction manual, but who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
Or companies, which have most if not all of the rights of natural persons (except for the right to vote), and few of the responsibilities.
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the right to personhood should be given to anyone who of their own volition can claim the right. And yes, that also means taking it away from many who have it today.
Including corporations.
I don't see any non-human lifeforms being able to claim that right. Future computers might, or genetically modified/engineered animals.
But I believe most animals should still have the protection of being sentient beings, much like we protect infants and retarded people.
Re: (Score:3)
But the great apes, cetaceans and elephants do not possess even the rights of infants of the mentally incapacitated. They are protected via fairly limited and frequently ignored animal cruelty laws, but that's about it. There is no recognition of the sentience of these creatures, they receive no more protection than a hamster would.
Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, when an ape kills another ape, will we be sending it to jail?
Re: (Score:2)
well usa regularly kills retarded persons who have killed some other person..
I think the second part of the animal rights group is to simply try to gain custodianhood of the chimp-persons after getting them declared as persons. clearly they're not wanting the chimps to have any of the responsibilities of even mentally challenged people.
maybe they plan to run a chimp sanitarium and bill the state for the patients.
Re: (Score:3)
So, when an ape kills another ape, will we be sending it to jail?
Not if he can get a snake [wikipedia.org] to represent him in a way that clears him.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be like a child murdering another child. There would be sanctions, probably confinement, treatment, possible partial culpability for the owners/parents etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Life imitating Art (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Difference being that Jerry was modified. If we can ever uplift chimps to that level, granting them "human" rights will be a no-brainer. Sci-fi in general has done a lot of hand-wringing over such questions (see Data's trial in ST:TNG) but given the current zeitgeist I couldn't ever see it being an issue. The day a chimp can walk up to me and say "Hi, I'm Jerry, could you please stop experimenting on me?" is the day he gets the full protection of our laws. Until then it's always going to be a fringe iss
On Grounds of Standing Alone.... (Score:5, Insightful)
...this case should have been tossed. One can't file on behalf of another (unless they are a legal guardian or hold a power of attorney), and the plaintiffs also can't show any personal harm to themselves.
If they feel strongly enough about the issue, the remedy is political. Convince enough people that 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures will agree, and pass a Constitutional amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:On Grounds of Standing Alone.... (Score:5, Funny)
One can't file on behalf of another (unless they are a legal guardian or hold a power of attorney), and the plaintiffs also can't show any personal harm to themselves.
They had standing due to special circumstances; in this situation they were allowed to file the case pro-bono(bo).
Stupid (Score:2)
Good news for the major political parties (Score:3)
Now if we can just get them all to sign up and donate money.
Not until they can put on a suit of clothes (Score:3)
Re:Not until they can put on a suit of clothes (Score:5, Interesting)
There are plenty of people who appear before the courts who cannot argue their own cases. In fact, most Common Law jurisdictions have individuals called Public Trustees (or a similar office) who are charged with representing those who, because they are not deemed capable of representing themselves in court, still may need access to the judicial system. Surely granting basic liberties to other sentient creatures could be modeled on the same legal structures we put in place to protect children and the mentally incapacitated.
Can they form corporations? (Score:3)
Can they form corporations? That's where it gets really interesting.
But? (Score:2)
Have we forgotten dogs and cats? Shouldn't they have the right to sleep together?
Cool (Score:2)
simple test (Score:2)
they already do this for humans: mental capacity.
It's a legal test: if the subject is found capable of litigating for himself, then he is "granted" the opportunity to assert his rights - which, it would then be assumed, he is aware of. If he is found not to be capable (which is the point of the test - it is not intended to find capacity, it is intended to find lack of capacity), decisions are made for him. He has zero input in decisions which directly and profoundly affect him.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ [legislation.gov.uk]
Must be frustrating... (Score:3)
Invertebrate rights now! (Score:2)
Just say no to escargot!
What this isn't about... (Score:4, Insightful)
A brief scan through the comments on slashdot so far comes up the usual, lame list of "reasons why this is just so stupid, like".
So, this is not about whether chimpanzees should get the vote.
It isn't about whether they should be considered human.
It isn't about whether they should be allowed/forced to take part in human society on an equal footing.
What it is about, is how we treat the animals in our care; part of that has to touch on whether animals have anything like personality: do they 'feel' rather than simply 'react'? Do they have wishes, intentions, thoughts, or are they simply 'flesh machines'? As our insight grows, it becomes harder and harder to deny that many, if not most, animals are like ourselves in that respect; what separates us is a matter of degrees rather than something fundamental: humans are more intelligent etc, but there is no reason to think we have a 'soul' which other animals don't have.
The other part of the problem is to decide what we ourselves are, or want to be. When we don't want to torture prisoners, when we don't just get out the popcorn and watch the Ebola epidemic etc, it is because we as a society have the choice to care about others. It wasn't always so, and not everybody agrees. But we have chosen to be the kind of people who care and therefore we find it hard to deliberately cause suffering.
Whether legislation is the right way, I don't know; in my experience people often resent rules and laws that are imposed on them, even if they agree on the sentiment behind them. Basically, it is about respect; we should certainly respect other animals on their terms, but having rules imposed on you doesn't feel very respectful.
Re: (Score:3)
Whether legislation is the right way, I don't know; in my experience people often resent rules and laws that are imposed on them, even if they agree on the sentiment behind them. Basically, it is about respect; we should certainly respect other animals on their terms, but having rules imposed on you doesn't feel very respectful.
You mean rules like "Don't murder little Timmy"?
If you accept that some animals are much closer to us than to other kinds of animals, that they have personality, feelings, emotions, intelligence and all, then rules for dealing with them are no longer optional, they're mandatory. Just as some rules are mandatory between humans. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
An issue for congress? (Score:2)
Re:They'll have rights (Score:5, Insightful)
You just pulled the rights from a a metric fuck ton of mentally & physically handicapped people
Re: (Score:2)
You just pulled the rights from a a metric fuck ton of mentally & physically handicapped people
I think he's talking about the species as a whole, not individuals.... but you could say
The individual chimp will have rights as soon as they can hold down jobs to feed themselves OR one of their family members/parents/ancestors, or their tribal government can.
Re: (Score:2)
the British Government already did that with the institution of the Court of Protection: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... [legislation.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, talk about jumping to erroneous conclusions. The majority of humanity supports itself. Those who can't are the exception, and are still human.
Chimps that could hold down jobs, on the other hand, would be exceedingly rare and would be the exceptional cases (if there are any at all.)
As to the racists who jumped on my post: You people are sick degenerates from the shallowest end of the gene pool and should be flushed from the bowels of humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, if you can't fend for yourself then you should have fewer rights and probably should be treated as a child.
Which rights do you propose to take away from the highly physically disabled?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They'll have rights (Score:5, Informative)
1) Animals already have something resembling rights, in the form of animal cruelty laws; the question here is whether those rights should be expanded to include some of the things guaranteed to humans.
There is a spectrum of opinion [wikipedia.org] on what "animal rights" means. At the very least, I think animal rights include the right not to suffer needlessly at the hand of humans. I doubt anyone would argue that is also a human right. So, continuing in that direction, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that many human rights can be accorded to animals also.
Arguably, what we humans call animal rights are really just human-law restrictions on our own behavior (and good ones IMHO.) However, I think it captures their intent to call them "rights" so I embrace the term.
2) Plenty of humans (children, or, as someone else pointed out, the handicapped) can't hold down jobs or feed themselves. Chimps and dolphins, on the other hand, typically are able to feed themselves. So what you're saying is, chimps and dolphins should have more rights than children and the disabled?
I don't think it's a question of "more" rights, just different ones, and with the qualifier I mentioned above that we're really talking about human laws, not animal rights. I would say that animals have their own innate sense of rights and justice, and what we think of as their rights is an idealized picture of our relationship with them.
We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth. -- Henry Beston
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. I'm not disagreeing with you, and regret that it seems like I am. I join with you in rebutting the OP.
In short, I'm on your side. I just found that what I wanted to say fit well as a reply to your post.
Re: (Score:3)
After seeing cats toy with mice to levels that would unquestionably be considered torture by every nation on Earth if a human was the victim, I
Re: (Score:2)
Would it count as jobs if they made money as research chimps? ...oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
until they take their first breath, nope.
Re: (Score:3)
You might just wait a few months then.
Amendment 67 in Colorado is a personhood bill that actually has some support this year. I remember when they were collecting signatures and I saw loads of people signing it that had no idea of the ramifications.
Ask the average nitwit if, "a pregnant woman is hit by a drunk driver, should there be two counts of manslaughter?" The knee-jerk response is "well that at least seems reasonable". That is how they worded it to people. Only by reading the proposal will you see
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with people who honestly believe that they are fighting for a just and vital cause is that they will go to any length of deception and legal trickery to achieve it. The ends justify the means. If the only way to save babies is to subvert the legal process, then it would be unethical not to do so.
Re:Can you marry one? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are lots of humans you can't legally marry. They pretty much all have one thing in common: they can't legally give consent.
Also, you really shouldn't look at your sister that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can you marry one? (Score:4, Interesting)
In virtually ever jurisdiction in the industrialized world children under a certain age cannot give consent for a variety of activities; sexual intercourse, signing contracts, medical treatments, etc. That a nine year old cannot consent to having sex or signing a contract doesn't mean they aren't a person. Personhood alone doesn't afford all rights and privileges, but it does guarantee the basic liberties.
I can imagine animals like chimps, dolphins and elephants being granted personhood under the law, but being that they do not have the cognitive and rational capacities of humans (well, I'm not so sure about elephants, there is something kind of spooky about them in the intelligence and emotional departments), they might hold those basic liberties in the same way that a child, a mentally ill person or a severely mentally handicapped person might. They couldn't sign contracts independent of a guardian, they couldn't be given the vote, but they would be protected from egregious violations of their basic civil liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
So, when a killer whale eats a dolphin, are you going to take it to court for violating their civil liberties?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're putting words in their mouth - no one is arguing that we should just coldly kill babies. This isn't about lowering babies, it's about improving the treatment of animals that are believed to have self-consciousness and the capacity to suffer from what we do to them.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
What does "pro-life" mean to you?
The majority of Americans, [gallup.com] 58%, are pro-life if you take that to mean "abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances, or outright illegal" (only 39% support legal abortion in "all" or "most" circumstances). Very few of those 58% are "anti-contraception" as that's a fairly extreme religious view (even most Catholics don't buy it).
Your belief seems to be:
* Some people support X
* Some people who support X support Y
* Therefore, all who support X support Y
Which makes me
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly they don't agree. There a re plenty of pro-choice people who believe:
* Abortion should always be available and without needing a reason.
That's not just "different contexts" from your view.
Re: (Score:2)
There a re plenty of pro-choice people who believe:
* Abortion should always be available and without needing a reason.
28% of Americans, in fact, per that linked survey.
Re: (Score:2)
The catholics, jews, christians, muslims and other organized religious types believe that every sperm is sacred, so even rape babies, and medically questionable babies must be brought to term.
That's painting with a heck of a broad brush! That belief is rare among Catholics, and almost non-existent otherwise. Also, you forgot Hindus and Buddhists. (To judge by average age of lost virginity, Hindus are the most sexually uptight people on the planet.)
Meanwhile you'll usually find that the average pro-choice person's only real bitching point about pro-lifer's is the religious angle.
The world certainly would be a better place if people could overcome their blind, stupid prejudices.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's rare among Catholics, but it's also the official position of the Catholic church. The discrepancy is quite simple: Most of the lay church members ignore almost everything their church teaches. It's a serious problem that the priests are still struggling with every day. Most of the church ignores their teaching, but if they try to get stricter about compliance they would lose far more members than they are willing to accept.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True.
But where are they in the organised pro-life movement? Absent. They have no role there. All of the prominent pressure groups - the FRC, FotF, Operation Rescue, the AFA, most if not all of the state-level 'family' groups, the Roman Catholic church - all of those oppose contraception as well. They make sure it stays this way by continuing to exclude anyone who does promote contraception. It's a political movement run by the hard-liners.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pro-life and pro-contraception.
Would you like some leaflets to distribute now or would you prefer to use word of mouth?
Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So if the father didn't want the baby, but the woman did, he shouldn't have to pay child support, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on being moderated Insightful for that comment, but you're going to have to explain what the hell you're talking about.
Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Said right-wing groups choke money spent on education standards, teach everyone "abstinence only!" when it's not realistic, etc., which results in people having babies because they had unprotected sex and didn't have the education for how to use contraception. Now that babies are born to people who are poor and didn't have the education to know how to reduce the risk of babies from the one act that could take the stress out of their life, they also can't get welfare, medicaid, etc. because "they aren't carrying their fair share," which forces their kids through poverty, shitty education, a lack of contraception knowledge, more babies, and more kids forced through poverty.
Honestly, if hard-right-wingers just said "Hey, we believe abortion is wrong, but use contraception to greatly reduce the risk of having a baby!", they might've actually had some support! But their current stance is "you can't use contraception, and you must take care of anybody you bring into this world on your own. We know you can't help but have sex because it's wired into your brain but screw you anyway."
Independent voter here. I usually vote for moderate Republicans, Independents, or moderate Democrats.
Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't (Score:4, Insightful)
The single most effective technique available to reduce the number of elective abortions would be to promote contraception, in both availability and education. It works - and works almost perfectly. It's the main reason that developed countries have such a low birth rate.
Yet if you look at very any organisation in the pro-life movement you'll find that, almost without exception, they are opposed to contraceptive education, and opposed to providing insurance coverage, and opposed to subsided provision. Many of them (Mostly the ones with Roman Catholic connections) go further than that, and openly consider the use of contraception to be inherently immoral and something that should be legally forbidden.
This contradiction indicates that for all of their rhetoric about the sanctity of life, they are far less concerned with opposing abortion than they are with reversing the sexual revolution and bringing back the natural consequence of pregnancy that once forced everyone to live by the code of their holy text.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
here, I'll fuck your head up:
Until it has taken its first breath, a fetus has NO RIGHTS. It isn't even a person in the legal sense. It is an "event". A transient condition on a woman. Legally it is in the same class as a cancer. If a court decides it is to be forcibly removed and reared in a whitewall institute, there is NOTHING the mother can say, nothing ANYBODY can say on the matter, the decision is made and nobody can claim to represent the event's rights because a: it is not human and b: it has no righ
Re: (Score:2)
piss off, if a fetus were a person with human rights then abortion would be murder hence illegal across all jurisdictions signatory to the UN Charter on Human Rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)