Comments on: Animal personhood

By: SlyBevel

SlyBevel — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 07:23:00 +0000

Gaxians unite!

By: Malk A Zoid

Malk A Zoid — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:51:00 +0000

A lot of comments here are ignoring the difference between the status of person and the biological label of ‘human’. Personhood does not imply the responsibility of abiding by human laws – it merely delineates a moral status.
Regardless of the problems associated with this path, if certain animal species clearly match our criteria for personhood (not humanity, personhood), then it simply the right thing to do to face reality and give them that status. The ethical implications of that status must then be dealt with and enshrined into law.

Calling the personhood route ‘fiction’ is simply uninformed. The science and ethics behind these initiatives are extremely well established.

By: siegfried

siegfried — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 11:10:00 +0000

Last week a Brazilian writer from the “Veja” magazine just made a similar comparison, but with goats; something in the lines of “Gay people can’t marry as people can’t marry goats too”. So, that’s *not* a hypothetical joke!

By: equilibrist

equilibrist — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:03:00 +0000

Sounds like the Uplift Wars have begun.

By: Boundegar

Boundegar — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:46:00 +0000

I’ve often thought that treating animals as if they have human rights just invites the state to treat humans like animals.

By: Purple-Stater

Purple-Stater — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:30:00 +0000

By: paulj

paulj — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 04:38:00 +0000

My standard poodle wants rights, but not responsibilities. Damn freeloader is too young to vote anyway.

By: Rindan

Rindan — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:01:00 +0000

Personhood implies not just protection, but also responsibility for one’s actions. I don’t know of anyone other than humans who can take on full human responsibility. I think declaring animals need “personhood” is likely to turn off more people than it is to recruit. It is fiction to call an animal that can’t negotiate, follow rules, or communicate with us a “person”. They don’t need person protections and responsibilities They need protection specific to situation.

What makes more sense is to give higher order animals more protection in the way you protect any aspect of the environment. We already do to a large extent. It is trivial to get the thumbs up to test on a cockroach, but you have to jump through some very serious hoops to do medical testing on primates.

I’m not against examining greater protection for higher ordered animals, but the “personhood” rout is just extremist sounding fiction that is more likely to do these animals more harm than good.

By: travtastic

travtastic — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:59:00 +0000

I love how we put the onus of personhood on other animals, who just happen to be the victims. It would be easier to define being human as ‘not killing shit for funsies’.

By: SumAnon

SumAnon — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 02:16:00 +0000

Justifiable homicide; the whales were defending themselves from starvation.

By: fruityboots

fruityboots — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:17:00 +0000

Animals are people.

By: Ian Anthony

Ian Anthony — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:58:00 +0000

The Republican slippery slope argument was right! Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

By: Sekino

Sekino — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:55:00 +0000

Too many single, working moms among them.

By: Bryce Caron

Bryce Caron — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:24:00 +0000

Well I guess this is one time when having a highly endangered elephant population is okay.

By: Petzl

Petzl — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:11:00 +0000

When we can we marry one?

By: ChicagoD

ChicagoD — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:40:00 +0000

Seems pretty unworkable. From a legal perspective a chimp is (a) completely able to survive on its own in the wild and has full capacity in its own society, but (b) would have profound disabilities with an appointed guardian in a human context. If the perceived benefit is that we will treat animals better, pass animal protection laws. Making them equivalent to people with profound disabilities is not going to make that happen.

By: Mike Johnson

Mike Johnson — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:36:00 +0000

It’s jarring to see that article posted the day after BP pleads guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter. Many of the arguments against granting personhood to non-human species are just as valid against granting personhood to corporations, yet we’ve gone ahead and done that. Still, if the Pacific White-Sided Dolphin species were to incorporate, who would choose their board of directors?

By: Brainspore

Brainspore — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:45:00 +0000

And when the elephants are granted the right to vote, is it a foregone conclusion that they’ll all just side with the Republicans?

By: big ryan

big ryan — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:40:00 +0000

if we classify whales and octopuses as persons do we start locking up whales for murdering octopuses?

maybe thats how we can keep sea world stocked with whales ‘this isn’t an animal park, its a prison for persons who are murderers”

By: big ryan

big ryan — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:36:00 +0000

seems kind of extreme

By: Brainspore

Brainspore — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:34:00 +0000

The upside of not being legally classified as people is that animals aren’t bound by our laws either. That’s why apes can get away with masturbating in public.

By: Joel Finkle

Joel Finkle — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:30:00 +0000

Duh, just incorporate.