Activists want chimp declared a 'person'

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

It's been a while since I have seen something so incredibly stupid.

La Forge · **Sat May 05, 2007 1:33 am**

I don't think it is that stupid. Like the guy said, he's not asking for chimps to have the right to vote, but, to have protection from animal testing, torture, etc, which I completely abhor. People are animals and are no better than the other animals.

TrekkieMage · **Sat May 05, 2007 1:47 am**

Hm. Really interesting. I'll admit I'm too groggy to read the whole article, but it looks interesting.

From what it sounds like they don't want the chimp considered a "person" in the way we consider humans to be people.

Right now we have humans and animals. Animals have practically 0 legal rights, whereas humans are primary in the law. So by getting this chimp rights to care and such, they're almost created a thrid tier of life.

1. Humans (duh)
2. Animals that display human-like traits, are considered to be sentient beings - almost like children
3. Animals in every other sense of the word.

Very interesting

Puck · The Texan Joined: 05 Jan 2004 Posts: 5596

squiggy · **Sat May 05, 2007 10:33 am**

TrekkieMage · **Sat May 05, 2007 11:16 am**

The problem is perception - of course we think we're better than everyone else. We've been taught that we are since day one.

There's a wonderful book called Ismael by David Quinn that talks about human perception in the world, and how humans came to be where there are. It's a facincating book told from the perception of people learning. I think that some of the contents of it are very relevant to this discussion.

Ismael referst to two groups of beings - Takers and Leavers. Leavers use only what they need, do not kill beyond what they need, only have enough children to keep their race alive, and merely wish to live.

Takers on the other hand have more children than we need, take more food than we need, kill animals without needing to and then wasting the resources, and don't understand the balance of nature.

From that point of view other animals are better than us.

I think that this legislation is trying to force us to consider what it means to be human, and is asking if we really have the right to deny other creatures similar protection under our laws.

Arellia · **Sat May 05, 2007 12:07 pm**

Hitchhiker · **Sat May 05, 2007 12:16 pm**

We aren't talking about declaring the chimp a human being in the scientific sense.

They simply want this chimp declared a person in the sense of a legal entity. It's an important distinction. For instance, up until only recently (we're talking turn of the 20th century or so), women weren't considered "persons" in the legal sense. They were scientifically human, but they did not have the same legal rights as men.

As the article specifies, Austria does have animal cruelty laws. But the article also mentions it's possible to sell Hiasl to a country without any such laws. That would be bad for Hiasl.

If the courts ruled that Hiasl was a legal person, then he would have the right to own his own property, and to have a guardian to oversee his affairs. Personhood is the difference between owning property and being property.

Another catch is that Austrian law requires that one is a "person" in order to accept donations. So unless Hiasl is a person, the people who are currently caring for him can't accept donations toward his cause on his behalf.

I don't see anything wrong with declaring Hiasl a person. I don't think it sets a dangerous precedent in any sense. We aren't going to be declaring goldfish people anytime soon; however, because of our close relationship with primates, especially chimpanzees, we have a soft spot for people like Hiasl and his plight.