Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

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.

Comments

Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BitterOak]

If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

1 poo sling for yes, 2 for no

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[TWX]

They'd make better people than corporations do...

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage with humans? Thrown in jail for being naked? Arrested for underage sex? Forced admittance to the local public school?

I don't have a problem with smart animals getting more rights, but they shouldn't be considered persons. We need another class.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[phantomfive]

More importantly, would they vote Republican or Democrat?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Frosty Piss]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one is more likely to get them a banana republic?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[TheInternetGuy]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[kylemonger]

Thinking about Card's Hierarchy of Foreigness will give you an idea what these people are trying to accomplish.

http://ansible.wikia.com/wiki/...

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...

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my thought. I think the corporate ruling is insane and compared to that this is super sensible.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[bondsbw]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[TWX]

Chimpanzees will eventually die of their own natural causes. They end, and their effects on the world will end.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[dasunt]

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 grammar). They can pass a mirror self-recognition test. They are capable of tool use. If I had to hazard a human analogy, they are somewhat like a young human child, but lacking human's preprogrammed neural pathways for proper language.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[MightyMartian]

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 think it is becoming increasingly difficult to simply place these more advanced animals in the same category as cows or gerbils.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[arth1]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[MightyMartian]

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?

[Chelloveck]

I propose that we define a chimp as 3/5ths of a person. There's precedent, at least...

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[ColdWetDog]

I never thought that Howard the Duck was meant as an instruction manual, but who knows?

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

How long? Many political offices are already by chimps.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law seems to fail here. We have the concept of "human", and the concept of "animal", but nothing between.

Say what? The law certainly has in-betweens, for example: "juvenile", "intellectually disabled" ("mental retardation" until recently) and even "vegetative state". The law provides for different rights and punishments to members of such categories.

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 grammar). They can pass a mirror self-recognition test. They are capable of tool use. If I had to hazard a human analogy, they are somewhat like a young human child, but lacking human's preprogrammed neural pathways for proper language.

"Vegetative state" is a great example for highlighting that cognitive intelligence has absolutely zero to do with whether a living being deserves protection under the law as anything more than "animal". The law and Descartes do not see eye to eye.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

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?

[ColdWetDog]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[whoever57]

Criminals and the insane, for instance, are certainly persons, but may have many of the rights limited and some outright revoked

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?

[davester666]

You most definitely do NOT want to be present for a filibuster.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[0123456]

So, when an ape kills another ape, will we be sending it to jail?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

> how would you change the law and what would that change in the law mean?

There's no 1 law. There's a number of laws, regulations and rulings that have characterized corporations. 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. Simplify corporate structures to a set of federally regulated organizations. Individual, Private, Public, and Charity (for example).

This is just to start. There are far too many laws and regulations to cover here and would all come with uncertainty (from a grain of salt to a black hole of worry). Asking about such an insidiously woven mat of legalities, is a little beyond the scope of the topic, and certainly would take more than a trite post about 1 segment of a gaping wound in the US socioeconomic system.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[gl4ss]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

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 us both of that experience to no gain at all.

You give me nothing and you get nothing because there is nothing I can say about nothing.

So far what I have from you is this... "we shouldn't be focused on this because it isn't important and should instead focus on 'stuff'"... That is literally how your argument reads to me at this point. I am not trying to strawman you. I am pointing out that this is what happens when you're intentionally vague. I can't judge if you do it.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[mwvdlee]

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?

[SuricouRaven]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Harlequin80]

. 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 McDonalds is subject to a lawsuit judgement that exceeds its net worth. In the current setup you lose your $5, in your proposal you just lost your house, all your assets and your life savings - it just doesn't work.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Sarius64]

Too bad your reality-bias is now Democrats in everyone's bedrooms.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Barsteward]

a lot of them seem to be posting on /. so why not?

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Barsteward]

don't demean chimps

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.

  Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta' dropped dead. Kinda' like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Damn cheap monkeys.

  I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.

  I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.

  I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.

  I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn't want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.

  I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately, there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn't all go bad.

  I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.

  Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn't improving.

  I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.

  I tried throwing them away but the garbage man said that the city was not allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn't take that one either. I didn't bother asking about the frozen ones.

  I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn't know quite what to say. They pretended that they like them, but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.

I like monkeys.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[diamondmagic]

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?

[erikkemperman]

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.

No, limited liability is a rather newer invention than incorporation. Only by about a millennium and a half.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[FireFury03]

If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.

Also, does that mean we have to jail them when they commit crimes against each other? (E.g. stealing each other's food, etc).

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[mwvdlee]

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?

[diamondmagic]

You actually think a single person would be able to pay all the damages asked in many of today's lawsuits against corporations?

You think most people are willing to accept liability on behalf of their employer, with the potential to lose most all their property if found guilty?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BringsApples]

Chimpanzees will eventually die of their own natural causes. They end, and their effects on the world will end.

sed -e 's/Chimpanzees/Humans/'

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BringsApples]

Well said. Let us not forget that cars, dolls, and shoes have something that a corporation doesn't have: a physical existence.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BringsApples]

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.

I don't know about them, but what I don't like is that the corporation has rights observed by courts, but it has no physical body that can be incarcerated.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BringsApples]

So, when an ape kills another ape, will we be sending it to jail?

Not if he can get a snake to represent him in a way that clears him.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[mwvdlee]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

Explain specifically what your problem is here?

Because it sounds like you're repeating something you heard from someone but haven't really thought about. It is hard for me to have a discussion about this issue until you've been very clear about your position.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[diamondmagic]

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?

[codeButcher]

But I believe most animals should still have the protection of being sentient beings, much like we protect infants and retarded people.

Or, we could free the chimps and use aborted fetuses for clinical trials instead. Or perhaps remove the "unwanted tissue" from the mother without damaging it and (for instance) use a surrogate mother or some future "artificial womb" to have it mature sufficiently for research needs....

Not to start a pro-abortion/pro-life debate here, but it does point out the minefield of deciding what is human and what not, what is a person and what not, what deserves legal protection and what not.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[AmiMoJo]

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[tehcyder]

That would be great news for corporations, of course.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[tburkhol]

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.

No, limited liability is a rather newer invention than incorporation. Only by about a millennium and a half.

Are you sure you're reading that wiki right, dude? It sure looks like they're claiming that Rome defined corporate entities as separate legal structures with their own liability in the mid 6th century. The unlimited liability the wiki refers to seems to be specific to UK law, and especially to companies created by royal charter, as the establishment of modern stock-based corporations was followed rapidly by the Limited Liability Act.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[arth1]

Or, we could free the chimps and use aborted fetuses for clinical trials instead. Or perhaps remove the "unwanted tissue" from the mother without damaging it and (for instance) use a surrogate mother or some future "artificial womb" to have it mature sufficiently for research needs....

From what I can tell from the above, it shows that it's impossible to even discuss this in an objective way - any discussion will deteriorate into appeals to feelings.

I think the judge needs to state that animals have a right to be judged by their own, and that any act of giving them personhood takes away that right.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[msauve]

Congress should have the ability to pass legislation restricting the actions of corporations in any way they want.

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:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[oodaloop]

Perhaps not. But can you send a corporation to prison?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

As to congress and the corporation, they are associations of people. If you think they can have their rights reduced at will, then you must give a reason for why they can have their rights reduced but other human associations cannot have them reduced.

As to a corporation being an artificial legal construct... what isn't? What is a not for profit charity? It is likewise artificial and likewise a legal construct. What about a labor union. Likewise artificial... likewise a legal construct.

Why are you singling corporations out and on what basis. You cannot do it on the basis of being either artificial or a legal construct. Neither criteria is unusual.

The primary problem with your idea is that it infringes on the freedom of association. Corps are associations of people. Think of them like clubs. Under the law they're only different for tax purposes. And those differences only exist because clubs rarely generate a taxable income.

Again, you really need to address the freedom of association if you're going to deal with this issue. It is typical for people that deal with this to skip over that. You can't and retain intellectual integrity.

If your argument is that only individuals should be allowed to exercise freedom of speech that leads to all sorts of problems.

This is by and large a half baked issue pushed around by political groups that are mostly just upset that a corporation didn't donate to their political cause. While at the same time being more then happy to take funding from other equally dubious sources. I see no moral high ground on this issue.

I grant that corps are often a bad influence on national politics. But then so are all the lobbying groups. I don't see how they're any worse.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[tehcyder]

Well said. Let us not forget that cars, dolls, and shoes have something that a corporation doesn't have: a physical existence.

So what? "The Military" or "The Government" don't have an individual physical existence either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[NetNed]

It does bring new hope to the Lancelot Link party dream of one day holding office.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Talderas]

There's really only two paths out. The first path is to pass a constitutional amendment granting Congress the power to regulate campaign contributions. The second path is to reverse the decision on Buckley v. Valeo. Everything else is pointless grumbling and misinformation.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Culture20]

No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[PhilHibbs]

s/Chimpanzees/Humans/;

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Talderas]

I'm not sure if this comment is racist, insightful, or funny....

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

... 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 legal construct.

You cut the corps out and you cut all the lobbying groups out as well. You can't say one is okay and the other is not without biasing the political process. You're not removing corruption if you do that. You're picking winners and losers in political debates and thus subverting democracy.

Look, the issues of money in politics are very serious and I think we should reform it. However, if you are going to reform it, then you need to reform it for all factions at once. If you try to bias the system so that some factions can contribute and others cannot... you give those factions that are at a disadvantage no reason to permit the action. And that means you're not going to get their cooperation in congress.

As to this notion that you'll just change the law by arbitarily changing court rulings... that is the height of anti democratic theory. That's dictatorial. The courts ideally must JUDGE the law as written by the legislature. They should neither make the law nor say what should or should not be law. Their purpose is to judge the law not create it.

The freedom of association is what grants the corps access to the political process. Not this collection of misunderstood buzzwords.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[jythie]

That is actually kinda what cases like this are about, non-humans having limited legal rights as entities (as opposed to property) within the legal framework. I think there was another one winding its way through the system having to do with donations and if the ownerless chimp could legally accept them (with through a legal guardian) to fund transfer to a preserve.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[internerdj]

I'm confused. I was pretty sure the chimps were specifically bred to hold political office. What have I been voting for all this time?

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Anonymous Coward]

Monkeys

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[tsqr]

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.

Also including labor unions, non-profit organizations, political action committees... anything that isn't an individual human being. And depending what "of their own volition" really means, you'd probably have to eliminate a lot of individuals as well.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[am 2k]

And yes, that also means taking it away from many who have it today.

Including foreigners that have trouble with the local language and all infants.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[shaitand]

You don't sue people for crimes you imprison them. I can imprison a chimp, how exactly do you imprison a chimp?

Also, you are using misdirection. Corporate person hood refers to more than the ability to hold a corporation liable. It refers to giving the corporation rights and protections in addition to those already enjoyed by the individuals who make up the corporation. The concept taken to it's extreme would give my wife and I (who now hold control of a corporation) an extra vote in an election.

Most importantly, from the liability you aspect you mentioned, is that instead of my wife and I being responsible for the crimes we collectively commit under the umbrella of that piece of paper, the paper is liable. We can do all sorts of unethical and evil using it's name, then fold that paper up and put it away if it doesn't all work out.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[hey!]

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 status sought for chips is similar. To turn your questions around, is it OK to capture children from their native environment as bush meat or for purposes of experimentation?

When you're apply reductio ad absurdum to a proposal, you ought to ensure the nature of that proposal is unchanged, otherwise you're just scoring emotional points.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[mwvdlee]

A corporation would be neither happy nor sad about that news.
The owners and directors of the corporation will be shitting in their pants, though.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[operagost]

That's like saying a human being isn't alive because the part we see is mostly a layer of nonliving kertin and dead skin cells.

A corporation is not a building. A corporation doesn't even need to have assets. One thing is does need is at least one living, breathing officer.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[aeortiz]

Don't forget taxes!

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[luis_a_espinal]

Corporate personhood refers to the ability to hold a corporation liable for debts and crimes.

We were able to do that without that legal shenanigans (just like other countries do).

Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?

1. False dichotomy.

2. A better suggestion would be to sue individuals on whose behalf, by virtue of negligence or criminality, a corporation became liable for debts and crimes (specially crimes.)

But hey, you can ignore #2 and embrace #1 if that's your thing.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[luis_a_espinal]

That's how criminal negligence already works, when's the last time a corporation was tried in court for murder?

It shouldn't. The individuals along the chain of command and supervision that committed the murder should be tried in civil court, and the corporation should be tried for damages in civil court if the corporation is found to have fostered a system that permitted the crime to occur in the first place.

I'm talking about enforcing contracts. My company orders a million dollars of widgets from Acme and they're never delivered. Who's responsible?

Acme. You do not need corporate personhood to sue Acme.

I don't want to sue an individual,

If the "corporation" is a single-person entity that is not incorporated for limited liability, that's your option (and one would ask why you would order a million dollar of widgets from said commercial entity.)

I'm never seeing my money back if that's the only option available.

Any intelligent business entity would never entered into a contract under such conditions. Also, contracts spell out responsibilities (who pays what and how much when defaulting a contract), in a document enforced by the law.

And under some conditions, the individual can be sued in a criminal court of law if he/she is found to have not acted in good faith.

And if I did, some poor employee for Acme is going to lose their second car and probably have to sell their house.

If the company is a single-person entity, yeah, pretty much. If it is a LLC, then you go after the corp's asset. And if it is a corporation, you go after the corporation's assets.

You do not need corporate personhood. It is a stupid American legal aberration. How the hell do you think developed countries like Japan or Germany that do not have such a notion handle violation of contracts or trials against corporations?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[MightyMartian]

Chimps kill young chimps. When tribes make war on each other, the killing of enemy tribes young is well documented. Chimps are pretty much as brutal as humans at the game of war.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[almitydave]

Or, we could free the chimps and use aborted fetuses for clinical trials instead. Or perhaps remove the "unwanted tissue" from the mother without damaging it and (for instance) use a surrogate mother or some future "artificial womb" to have it mature sufficiently for research needs....

From what I can tell from the above, it shows that it's impossible to even discuss this in an objective way - any discussion will deteriorate into appeals to feelings.

I think the judge needs to state that animals have a right to be judged by their own, and that any act of giving them personhood takes away that right.

Actually, the GP's entire comment rationally presents an important ethical challenge that needs to be addressed for both issues (animal personhood and abortion), regarding members of one class/species defining personhood for another. We need to be capable of discussing this rationally without resorting to emotional non-arguments, since it's fundamental to all other discussions about social rights and responsibilities.

As for this case, the judge has to stick to the law and the facts, and I just don't see any legal basis for granting the status of "person" to animals that are not members of homo sapiens. Like the GP indicates, it would be very dangerous indeed for the judge to create some previously unrecognized criteria for defining persons beyond that.

I am very interested in the topic of sentience, intelligence, reason and personhood - since we evolved from non-intelligent species eventually acquiring the ability to reason, presumably other species on this planet will eventually evolve likewise as well.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BringsApples]

I don't know why you keep asking everyone to dance for you here, man. Go look up Enron.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[almitydave]

It's a satirical reference to the 3/5 compromise which is commonly (and erroneously) claimed to have defined slaves as 3/5 of a person. What it said was that when counting population for the purpose of taxation and congressional representation, you counted free persons and 3/5 of slaves.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[BringsApples]

Well I never said that they don't exist. Point is that there is no way to physically bind the corporation in a prison cell so that it can both think about it's actions, and be prevented from doing those actions again (at least while in prison).

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[sudon't]

Corporate personhood has nothing to do with the ability to hold a corporation liable for debts and crimes. I wish it did - I'd love to see them convict and execute a corporation for murder. Corporate personhood is about corporations gaining constitutional rights, such as the right to free speech. If it were about taking on liability, do you think corporations would be clamoring for it like they do?

In most societies, with rights come responsibilities, (at least when it comes to actual persons). Instead of granting rights to animals, with god knows what unintended consequences, we should should be holding humans to their responsibility not to harm animals.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[arth1]

And? We already tell them that we don't consider them full persons, by curtailing the rights that real persons have, like voting, running for president, and as member of a jury condemning someone. They're not our peers, but only persons in potentia.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[arth1]

Which would be fine, if every part of that composite at the same time gave up their right to personhood.

If I'm a person, I can't claim that my left and right brain hemispheres also are persons. I don't get 3 votes.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[msauve]

" they are associations of people. If you think they can have their rights reduced at will,"

No, they are a subset of "associations of people." A subset which relies upon specific legal privileges to exist.

"As to a corporation being an artificial legal construct... what isn't?"

One example - I my friends and I get together, take up a collection and print and pass out political leaflets, there's no legal construct - we have every right to do so under "free association." There is absolutely nothing which requires forming a corporation in order to exercise free association. I am saying that if we instead want to incorporate and take advantage of the laws which grant special privileges to corporations, the state has every right to be able to say for what purpose that corporation may be formed, and that includes limiting the speech that corporation may make.

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Mike Buddha]

Chimpanzees are apes, not monkeys, you jerk.

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[StikyPad]

Poo is #2. #1 is something else entirely.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Jane Q. Public]

If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.

I've seen this coming ever since Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission.

But no, that's not a joke.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[DamnOregonian]

I haven't really seen anyone point this out in spite of you regularly making the conflation between for-profit corporations and not-for-profit corporations.
Am I wrong to see a distinction there?

One utilizes the willingly donated resources of the people for the purpose of lobbying for policy to lobby for policy, the other uses the resources of people, often given up because they have no real choice (we've got to live, right?) to lobby against the interests of those very same people.

Corporate personhood doesn't bother me so much as the abuse it allowed in campaign financing. Fix that, and I don't have any legitimate beef against corporations being more-or-less people.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Talderas]

I understand the reference. All three responses are valid interpretations depending on your own knowledge base and perceptions. For instance, chimp and monkey have at times been used in a derogatory manner towards black people.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[JesseMcDonald]

What gives them access to political process is the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision which ruled that spending money constitutes free speech so reversing that decision by getting it overturned is the saner and more realistic choice because if money is no longer considered free speech then the corporation cannot spend money for free speech.

I really don't see how the freedom to spend money on speech—whether that means renting out a venue, printing up a batch of fliers, taking out an ad in a newspaper, or running political commercials on TV—could possibly be considered less than absolutely essential to the core concept of free speech. That would be akin to saying that you're free to hold any opinion that you want privately, but aren't allowed to communicate it in any effective way to a broad audience.

Money isn't speech per se. However, effectively exercising your right to free speech necessarily involves the expenditure of resources, including money. The money is really just a scapegoat; even if you banned financial contributions, those with money would still be able to support their favorite causes with donated goods and services, not to mention access to ready networks of influential contacts.

The real problem here is the way that those with resources can influence the government to act in their favor at the expense of those without. The more the government grows and becomes involved in people's day-to-day lives, the more competition there is over political control—and that's a fight that the common people cannot win. The solution is to shrink the scope of that power by restricting the influence of the government over all our lives. When the government is limited to fair arbitration and enforcement of a small set of universal laws, favoring no group over another, there is no reason to struggle for political influence. In an ideal world the role of Senator would be mainly clerical, consisting of minor and uncontroversial updates to wording to reflect modern use, and perhaps the occasional clarification or trivial refinement of well-established principles. Major changes would be exceedingly rare, and backed by near-unanimous consent.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Talderas]

I agree. I don't think reversing Buckley v. Valeo is very likely. However it's the simpler route when talking about the court decisions that lead to Citizens United. The web of decisions that lead to the inevitability of Citizens United is far more complex so going after the money is the better method. It's also simpler in the sense that you need just a single state to pass a single law in order for it to have a chance of reaching SCOTUS. Going with undoing the other decisions would require a number of laws and you would be dealing with a couple decisions made by a majority of the current sitting justices making it unlikely to be overruled.

The more robust method would to be to pass a constitutional amendment that expressly grants Congress that power to regulate campaign spending but even that has its pitfalls. The problem with this plan would be getting Congress to push this Amendment, fat chance since the current system is of benefit to them, or require the states to instigate a Constitutional Convention, which has never happened, once again getting past the pesky politicians although ones likely more ameniable to the voters.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[JesseMcDonald]

The privileges of incorporation mainly relate to reducing the burden of other requirements the government itself imposes. Without incorporation you could still have arrangements such as limited liability (by contract) with regards to voluntary interactions such as debts, and that same limited liability wouldn't necessary protect you if you cause harm while acting on behalf of the organization ("piercing the corporate veil"). I don't really have any problem with eliminating incorporation as a legal concept—I don't think all that much would change—but only if other changes are made such that the burden imposed by the government doesn't cause disproportionate problems for people exercising their freedom of association and acting as a group. That basically means that the government would still need to deal with associations of individuals as a group when it comes to things like revenues and taxes and property held in common. Incorporation is little more than formal recognition of that status.

In your example, which individual in your group took custody of the funds donated for the leaflets? How were they accounted for with regards to personal income tax? If they ran off with the money, who would be responsible? Those are the kinds of questions incorporation was meant to answer. Addressing them in a legally binding way doesn't require any special privileges, and remains well within the scope of freedom of association.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[JesseMcDonald]

If it were about taking on liability, do you think corporations would be clamoring for it like they do? ... In most societies, with rights come responsibilities....

The only responsibility which comes along with any right is the responsibility to extend that same right to others. Rights being by nature universal, you can't claim a right yourself which you deny to anyone else. The constitutional rights being extended to corporations (or rather, to groups of individuals acting together as a corporation) are rights which are already secured to everyone else, so that responsibility is immediately fulfilled.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

What legal privilege do you think corps have that you don't want them to have. Be specific please. You keep repeating talking points, catch phrases, and buzz words but I don't think you know what they mean. No offense. I would just like you to describe what you want to change in your own words so I know precisely what you are talking about and know that you know what you're talking about.

As to passing out leaflets with your friend, that might work if there are two of you. But what if there are several thousand of you? Then you need an organization. And if you forbid associations that would mean that such organizations would be illegal or would have limited rights. Is that your intention?

Do you want Planned Parenthood to not be allowed to participate in the political process?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

Corporate management goes to jail all the time for things like that. Some fool just referenced Enron trying to say that corps don't pay the price... but the CEO of enron went to prison so that doesn't make any sense.

Corporate personhood does not mean you are immune from the law. If you PERSONALLY make choices then you're going to be held accountable for those choices.

Corporate personhood exists mostly to shield investors and not corporate management. If I buy stock in a company and that company does something immoral, should I as an investor, be held accountable for that? Obviously not. All I did was buy some stock.

Can you cite an example where a corporation was proven to have committed a crime and yet they were exempted from the law due to your notion of corporate personhood?

See, I think you misunderstand what corporate personhood means. Someone explained it to you badly and you're jumping to unfortunate conclusions. It doesn't work that way.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

In regards to special tax and legal status... Let us go through that.

1. They are double taxed. The income is taxed at the corporate level and then taxed at the investor level.

2. The legal status is different because the investors have extremely limited liability for the actions of the company. This is mostly the difference between a corp and anything else. The protections exist almost entirely between the investor and the company. Not between the management of the company and the law.

If you have some specific examples you'd like to discuss we can do that. But I think a lot of people in this discussion were misinformed about how this works and are jumping to incorrect conclusions.

As to giving up their right to free speech, I am not seeing how you can do that given the freedom of association. You're going to need to change the constitution if you want to do that.

As to your notion that the burden of proof should be on the defense to prove their innocence that is clearly unjust and not going to happen. If you want to prove someone is guilty then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove it. Suggesting otherwise is irrational.

As to holding executives accountable for fraud etc... executives are sent to jail for fraud. If they break the law it generally does result in them going to jail. That said, if the matter is a civil one and the penalty is a fine... generally I don't see the problem with the corporation paying the fine especially since the amounts of money we're talking about exceed anything even the senor management is going to have.

THAT SAID, I agree with you to the extent that I think senor management are often not very accountable to shareholders. The boards of directors are often puppets of the senor management instead of representatives for the shareholders.

Something which might help is if the board of directors were required by law to represent the shareholders. Either by quantity of stock held or by the direct election of those individuals by the shareholders to the board of directors. And that board should have oversight over the company on behalf of the shareholders.

Keep in mind that most CEOs that go nuts and do stupid thing are acting against the interests of the shareholders when they do that.

This would be a solution to our problem here without having to rewrite the constitution.
As to corporations being dominant, much of that is government's fault. We used to have more family businesses. But between the death tax confiscating half of a family fortune every generation and the ever expanding regulation... it isn't possible in most cases to run a large enterprise unless it is a corporation.

Consider how many major corps could survive if every generation they had to liquidate 50 percent of all assets... all capital... simply to pay taxes. Family businesses have to do that.

We're seeing some attempts to avoid the death tax with living trusts etc... but they don't work very well.

And it is because of this that we get corporations running everything. That and we've made everything so complicated that only a dedicated legal team can maintain compliance.

As to the government's job to regulate the economy, I don't agree with that point. I think the government's job is to protect the nation from external threats and maintain justice internally. Everything beyond that is a luxury.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

Okay, but spending money is a form of free speech.

Think about it. Let us say you are a newspaper. Is paper free? Is ink free? Are writers free? Are editors free? Are delivery trucks free?

Do you give your news away for free?

No on all counts. Newspapers are also corporations are they not? And yet they participate very actively in the political process. In fact, most news agencies are owned by larger parent corporations and they often push an agenda through their media divisions.

Would you forbid news outlets from taking political positions or expressing opinions?

Lets back out and talk about the World Wildlife Foundation. They engage in various campaigns all the time. And those campaigns cost money. Without the money they couldn't do a lot of it. They need to hire ad agencies. They need to rent office space. They need to buy plane tickets. And all of that money is in the service of influencing the political process and free speech. They do it all to be heard. Which means all the money they spend is to speak.

Money is less speech then it is required for speech in many cases. Without money you can't buy the megaphone to be heard.

And consider further that many people donate money to organizations AS a form of speech. If I donate to the World Wildlife Foundation, then I expect that money to go into environmental activism. And that means my contribution was my exercise of free speech.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

What you are describing is typical when bringing a legal case against ANY group.

Consider what just happened with the IRS denying tax exempt status to political activists opposed to the sitting president. They're literally destroying evidence and every time something comes up they shrug their shoulders.

This isn't a corporate issue. It is a group issue. You do have a very valid point about it being hard to determine who did what and when. However, that doesn't mean corporations are uniquely to blame for this situation. And removing corporate personhood would not change this situation. If I am in a limited partnership with a bunch of other people... and something happens... who knew what? The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case. If the cannot do that then the accused walks away.

That is what is happening here. Most corporations get away with things because the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence. It isn't because of some shadowy secret law that lets corps just ignore the law.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[diamondmagic]

Acme. You do not need corporate personhood to sue Acme.

If the company is a single-person entity, yeah, pretty much. If it is a LLC, then you go after the corp's asset. And if it is a corporation, you go after the corporation's assets.

Regular individuals can't bring a lawsuit against property ("John Doe v. Three gallons of milk" makes as much sense as "John Doe v. 60 shares of Acme, Inc."). Hence, corporate personhood.

Any intelligent business entity would never entered into a contract under such conditions. Also, contracts spell out responsibilities (who pays what and how much when defaulting a contract), in a document enforced by the law.

How much commerce do you think we do without the ability to enter into high-value contracts? Virtually none.

How do you think we enforce contracts against corporations? Corporate personhood.

You do not need corporate personhood. It is a stupid American legal aberration. How the hell do you think developed countries like Japan or Germany that do not have such a notion handle violation of contracts or trials against corporations?

They aren't Common Law states (countries), but nonetheless it's handled roughly the same.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Harlequin80]

Call it a privilege if you want. Without liabilities limited to the value of the corporation business as we know if would cease. The risk profile goes through the roof and people would simply not invest their money. Everything would collapse over night.

Secondly on the argument of privilege vs right. There are no rights. Everything you claim as a right, be it the right to assembly, right to free speech or whatever is something that is given to you as a privilege of living in a society that holds those values. If you change societies or the society around you changes these "rights" can cease.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[diamondmagic]

Also, you are using misdirection. Corporate person hood refers to more than the ability to hold a corporation liable. It refers to giving the corporation rights and protections in addition to those already enjoyed by the individuals who make up the corporation.

The ability to enter into a contract necessarily implies you have rights to own property, and trade that property with whoever you wish. Corporations have just as much right to buy or sell bananas or advertisements or widgets as I do.

The concept taken to it's extreme would give my wife and I (who now hold control of a corporation) an extra vote in an election.

In the US, votes aren't given to persons, but to individuals who are citizens of a certain age, and possibly other restrictions depending on state. Do mind the semantics, because corporate persons obviously don't fit in here.

If a different standard for voting was used, e.g. "Property owners cast votes proportional to how much land they own", then yes, corporations would cast votes. This is how it already works for voting for membership of corporate boards, so I don't see a problem with this. Obviously, that's a big "if".

Most importantly, from the liability you aspect you mentioned, is that instead of my wife and I being responsible for the crimes we collectively commit under the umbrella of that piece of paper, the paper is liable. We can do all sorts of unethical and evil using it's name, then fold that paper up and put it away if it doesn't all work out.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Marriage means you and your wife are considered a single person for certain purposes. Even if you have an LLC, you can't commit fraud - that's criminal, and you could be individually found guilty.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[diamondmagic]

We were able to do that without that legal shenanigans (just like other countries do).

What legal shenanigans? It's much simpler just to say "Hey, I can form a corporation that can make contracts and conduct business just like a sole proprietor can". You know, instead of having to write into the law "An individual or civil union or LLC or LLP or corporation or..." every time you want to refer to the concept.

Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?

1. False dichotomy.

It can't be a false dichotomy, it has a yes or no answer (or maybe "sometimes").

2. A better suggestion would be to sue individuals on whose behalf, by virtue of negligence or criminality, a corporation became liable for debts and crimes (specially crimes.)

Would you go to work knowing you could become liable for a botched order, or if your employer went bankrupt? Possibly losing your second car, maybe have to sell your house? Didn't think so. (That can and does happen to sole proprietors.)

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

1. From a free speech stand point why would you make a distinction between a for profit entity and a not for profit entity? On what basis does one lose its right to freedom of speech and the other lose it?

2. As to campaign financing, I have no problem with your policy if you apply it equally to everything. Limit the freedoms of all associations of people and by all means you can do it to corporations as well.

Absent that you've arbitrarily limited the rights of political opponents for your own crass partisan gain.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

The difference is that I said what was being repeated and then examined the logic of it to show it to be ill considered.

You just gainsaid me with zero basis or justification for it.

So if you have a problem with something I said, say what it was and why.

Otherwise, extent your right thumb until it is 90 degrees from your index finger, raise yourself off your seat about six inches, place your hand thumb up on the seat, and then gently lower yourself back onto the seat.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

That isn't an answer to my question. I am well aware that there have been corporate frauds.

Further, that is a really stupid example because the CEO went to prison. Where was his magical corporate immunity from the law? He went to prison. So... wtf are you even talking about?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[parkinglot777]

It would be like a child murdering another child. There would be sanctions, probably confinement, treatment, possible partial culpability for the owners/parents etc.

What are you going to do with a wild chimp (no "human" owner/guardiance)? And what are you going to do with the chimp's parents because they are partially response to the murder of another chimp???

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[shaitand]

You realize it takes 1-3 people and about $200 to have a corporation right? You don't need to be Bill Gates.

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[rezme]

Out of all of that, apes vs. monkeys was what you chose to take issue with? lmfao!

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[rezme]

Hahahahaha, you really think that's what corporate personhood is about? The ability to sue them? That's unbelievably cute. I could just put you in my pocket. Let me give you a hint, it was about the ability to make political donations in the name of a corporation.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[david_thornley]

In any large corporation, you're highly unlikely to be able to pin down which human was responsible. Also, corporations have wound up doing more damage than any individual in their structure can pay for.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[david_thornley]

Long before that stupid Supreme Court decision, people were suing corporations.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[david_thornley]

Which anti-Obama groups had tax-exempt status refused? The complaints I've seen were that the IRS delayed their applications for extra scrutiny, and I've read that the only organization that didn't become tax-exempt was more or less pro-Obama. Moreover, the IRS didn't destroy evidence. The IRS didn't keep emails past six months, and the personal copies had become lost over the years.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[david_thornley]

An association of people does not have every legal right an individual person does. If I form an association of voters, each individual in the association has the legal right to vote in elections, and the association does not. Nobody's rights are being infringed here.

People don't care about the problem just because corporation X donated to politicians they didn't like. Lots of people care because they believe getting all that money into political campaigns is a Bad Idea.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

If you concern is associations giving money to politicians then don't focus on corporations. That makes about as much sense as if I said "unions shouldn't be allowed to give money to politicians" but then didn't say anything about corporations or other associations.

if your idea is getting money out of politics, I think you'll find a lot of people that will agree with you.

There are problems with this idea though.

1. What if they don't give money to the politician but instead just say things in the media that effect the campaign?

2. What if the whole point of the association is to effect public policy? Are associations forbidden from petitioning the government? ... I could go on... there are problems with your idea.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Reziac]

This isn't actually about getting rights for chimps. It's about getting them declared people so that animal rights groups can sue other people (specifically the chimps' owners) on behalf of the chimps. Once established, this will trickle down to include all animals, thus to make pet ownership too legally risky, since anyone could sue you on behalf of your pet. (Ditto raising livestock.) Yet another step in the ARs' avowed goal of ending animal ownership and use.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

Here is the story for you:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

I thought everyone had heard of this already.

As to the IRS not destroying evidence... *rollseyes* whatever, bro.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[DamnOregonian]

From a free speech stand point why would you make a distinction between a for profit entity and a not for profit entity?

Simple. Because one of those represents the voting interests of the people who fund it, the other does not.
One funnels my money willingly for purposes I have a choice in, one does not.
The not-for-profit, assuming it's a registered lobby that's faithfully representing its funders, is doing just that- representing its funders.
The for-profit isn't. It's representing a board of directors, greatly amplifying their actual voice. Making their vote bigger than it really should be. They're more than welcome to use their personal funds to lobby though.

In short, the not-for-profit can be seen simply as a pooled resource of a bunch of individual people lobbying their government, while the for-profit is the pooled resources of a possibly massive segment of a market, not representing those people at all. No matter how you try to spin it, there is a difference. It's not crass or political. I have no desire to disenfranchise the wealthy corporate lords, but they can use their own money.

Absent that you've arbitrarily limited the rights of political opponents for your own crass partisan gain.

That is patently false. I'm a little stunned that someone going through such lengths to display intelligence, such as yourself, would even try to peddle something like that.
Allow me to paraphrase,
If you disagree with my assertion that a business is no different than a voter representation body, you're a dirty leninist out to subvert democracy for your own power.

Shame on you.

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

As to non-profits representing voting interests, that isn't any more true then with a company.

A lobbying group can be funded in some cases mostly by a very small number of very rich people. Or the entity could be running on an endowment from many years ago. Take the Getty Foundation which was set up by J Paul Getty. It is one of the richest art advocacy organizations in the world and basically no one donates to it. It operates as a company and the one person that really gave it a lot of money has been dead for decades.

So no.

If you changed the way that non-profits worked such that they could not receive more then 10 or 50 dollars per person then it would be closer to what you're talking about. But they don't work that way. And you'd also be acknowledging in the process that money is speech.

As your final comment, insulting me and strawmanning me do not strengthen your argument. That just makes you look desperate and unethical.

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[DamnOregonian]

Mocking your strawman with an exaggerated version is strawmanning you? Fascinating. Carry on, soldier. ;)

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Karmashock]

Where did I strawman you? I made an accusation of what you are doing. I did not misrepresent your position.

If you notion of strawmanning is anyone that views your position unflatteringly then it is almost impossible to not strawman someone. That said, you've effectively strawmanned the very concept of strawmanning which is as invalid as strawmanning itself. You appear to be strawmanning the english language now by arbitrarily redefining words as convenient.

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[RockDoctor]

You're not a Terry Pratchett / Discworld fan, are you?

Re: Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[RockDoctor]

Poor AC doesn't know his basic microbiology.

Take whatever pots you have large enough to take at least one monkey (ape!) ; stack the pots onto the stove as compactly as possible with as many monkeys as possible and a reasonable amounts of water per pot ; set the stove to start boiling the monkeys.

While your monkeys come to the boil, go to the nearest shop and get as many bin liner bags as you can, at least one per monkey, preferably two ; then return home to the aroma of cooking monkey.

When you've got one of the monkeys thoroughly boiled, transfer it while still scorching hot into one of the bin liners, and tie the neck as tightly as possible. If you have enough bags, double bag it. Refill that pan with monkeys and water and continue cooking.

Lather, rinse, repeat until you have an apartment full of the aroma of dilute monkey soup, and sterile boiled bags of monkey. As long as the bags remain un-opened, the monkeys should remain sterile and not actually decompose further. Take them to the park, morning and evening and feed the local dogs - your monkey problem should be disposed of in a few months.

The same technique may be modified to dispose of inconvenient dead hookers, but you need to deal with troublesome easily-identified bones, particularly the long ones. Isn't there a Grand Theft Auto add-on for this? And aren't the GTA developers working on an Ebola-Zombie game too, where you dare not splatter blood or body fluids from the zombies?

Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[cwsumner]

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.

Note that the new classification would be very similar to Slavery. 8-P

New laws, to fix bad things, often end up being worse that what they were supposed to fix. And sometimes, even an old bad fix that was tried before.

Life imitating Art

[techno-vampire]

The idea of a chimp, or other primate being intelligent enough to be considered human isn't new. Heinlein covered it back in 1947 in Jerry Was a Man. If you haven't read it yet, you really need to before discussing this article any further.

Re:Life imitating Art

[c6gunner]

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 issue.

Re:Life imitating Art

[Barsteward]

it could also be earlier than that... Napoleonic Wars for example... http://www.thisishartlepool.co...

Re:Life imitating Art

[c6gunner]

To be fair, many human children (and some adults!) cannot do that and they still get the full protection of our laws. An average chimp is at least as intelligent and self-aware as an average human toddler.

That may be true, but we know that humans as a species are relatively intelligent and self-aware, even if not all individuals are. If there comes a day when we can say the same thing about chimps, all of them will receive rights/protection even if some of them don't meet those criteria.

Human laws?

[Travis Mansbridge]

Most chimpanzees would likely end up right back in prison on destruction of property laws, among other things.

Re:Human laws?

[x0ra]

You're not getting it, these "rights" would be one way only, and come with no responsibilities.

Re:Human laws?

[Sloppy]

IMHO that's an excellent way of looking at it. If the chimp can persuade reasonable people that he can be trusted to not do that, he has a pretty good chance of being treated as though he does have rights. And anyone (chimp or otherwise) who persuades people otherwise, might find themselves being treated as though they don't have rights. (Shame about all the communications problems and other errors that happen in that second scenario, but it .. mostly works. Mostly.)

Re:Human laws?

[Darinbob]

The story is hyped up. If they win the lawsuit, the chimpanzee would not be "freed" and allowed to roam the streets, instead it will be held in captivity in a chimpanzee habitat/sanctuary.

Can you marry one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if they are a person, can you marry one? If not, why?

Re:Can you marry one?

[mjm1231]

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:Can you marry one?

[MightyMartian]

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:Can you marry one?

[x0ra]

The definition of "consent" is not universal... for better or for worst.

Re:Can you marry one?

[0123456]

So, when a killer whale eats a dolphin, are you going to take it to court for violating their civil liberties?

Re:Can you marry one?

[soccerisgod]

The same way a child or an mentally ill would.

Re:Can you marry one?

[LWATCDR]

But then would a human and a chimp have the right to get married?

Re:Can you marry one?

[LWATCDR]

Actually it would be murder.

Re:They'll have rights

[markass530]

You just pulled the rights from a a metric fuck ton of mentally & physically handicapped people

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[jedidiah]

The pro-life busybodies pretty much do everything they can to sabotage these "babies" once they have forced someone else to carry it to term.

They really are the ultimate hypocrites.

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[lgw]

What does "pro-life" mean to you?

The majority of Americans, 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 wonder if you've ever even thought deeply about the issue.

On Grounds of Standing Alone....

[maz2331]

...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:On Grounds of Standing Alone....

[martas]

Heh, well, what if the plaintiff acquired one of the animals formerly kept in captivity by someone else? Would they then be a legal guardian?

Re:On Grounds of Standing Alone....

[Krishnoid]

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).

I hate every ape I see...

[zawarski]

...from chimpan-a to chimpan-zee!

Can I marry My Chimpanzee now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean I really love my chimp. Fucking fascists want to keep man / chimp love from flourishing. For all you faggots who say I shouldn't be allowed to marry my chimpanzee just because a chimpanzee can not talk and is not smart enough to give consent, I say fuck you. Democrats are getting married all the time and their not as smart ans chimpanzees. If you ever saw me and my chimpanzee together you would know it is love for sure. If Chimpanzees can go into space and become an integral part of our medical establishment (drug testing) surely they should be allowed to enter into matrimony. If two dudes can get married, why can't I marry my chimpanzee, or anything else for the matter. You know what else I really love. I love my truck. Maybe I can marry my truck. Decisions decisions, Do I love my truck more than my chimpanzee, or do I love my chimpanzee more than my truck. Which one will stick by me? One thing I do know is I can not marry both, because that would be polygamy, and that would be disgusting and immoral.

-Hate is not a family value. But insanity sure the fuck is.

Re:Can I marry My Chimpanzee now?

[x0ra]

Beside pure moral grounds, if the knowledge to succeed the transplant is there, why not ?

Stupid

[uvajed_ekil]

This is soooo stupid! Everyone knows that the only thing we define as "people" are humans. And corporations.

Re:Stupid

[Kekke]

It's called The Planet of The Apes You know....

Good news for the major political parties

[caseih]

Now if we can just get them all to sign up and donate money.

Re:They'll have rights

[drinkypoo]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[digsbo]

There are plenty of pro-life people who aren't anti-contraception. It is in no way shape or form a solid, unified group who all hold the same opinions.

Re:They'll have rights

[martas]

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. 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?

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[afgam28]

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:They'll have rights

[killhour]

I'm not sure if you're arguing that we should perform invasive and many times lethal scientific experiments on the severely mentally disabled and young children. Because that's the kind of rights we're talking about, here.

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm generally pro-life in that:
a) Abortion should not be used as birth control in leiu of birth control pills, condoms, IUD's etc
b) Rape babies should be aborted. Period. Why force someone to endure that, only to have them be reminded of their rapist, or have the baby put in a foster home/adoption.

However:
- Abortion must not be used as a population control method (eg China's one-child policy)
- Abortion must not be used as a "get out of an accident free" option
- Abortion must not be used as a genetic control (oh this baby won't have blue eyes, kill it)

And I think a lot of the pro-life and pro-choice people actually agree on every point except, use different contexts to frame their arguments.

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. These are the same crazies who believe that divorce is a moral sin, and but then engage in drinking binges.

Meanwhile you'll usually find that the average pro-choice person's only real bitching point about pro-lifer's is the religious angle. If you take the religious angle entirely out of the argument, you'll usually find that everyone actually agrees.

Not until they can put on a suit of clothes

[jpellino]

and argue their own case in court. Next question.

Re:Not until they can put on a suit of clothes

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Not until they can put on a suit of clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

So that includes millions of humans too! Well done! Let's start experimenting on the young and handicapped and treating them just as inhumane.

Re:Not until they can put on a suit of clothes

[jpellino]

That model begs the question - in that it presupposes a chimp and a child or a mentally incapacitated person somehow have a common legal standing, given only that they share a limited level of communication skills. Equating the smartest chimp with the most limited-cognition human doesn't create a tenable argument. They are still chimps, not one of which is discussing personhood. The others are still humans, all of whom - absent limiting pathology - are capable of considering this discussion. The term "sentient" is the giant wiggly one here. Protect them and allow them to live as they should? Sure. Grant them the standing of a person? Unsustainable and superfluous. So - when a chimp lawyer can figure out how to do it for Chimp Doe, call me. Until then, still no.

Can they form corporations?

[istartedi]

Can they form corporations? That's where it gets really interesting.

But?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Have we forgotten dogs and cats? Shouldn't they have the right to sleep together?

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[Trogre]

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

[nedlohs]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[lgw]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[Trogre]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[lgw]

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:They'll have rights

[mysidia]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[gcnaddict]

Oh, that's easy.

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:They'll have rights

[ClickOnThis]

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 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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[x0ra]

The problem arises when the women end up being among the 1% statistical rate of an IUD failure, or the 20% failure rate of condoms. No matter what *you* think, it is none of your business to put any constrain on the women who's about to have her life fucked up by a baby she does not want.

Re:They'll have rights

[martas]

I'm not sure whether or not you think you're disagreeing with me... What I wrote was meant to be a rebuttal for GP.

Tax Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume that once they are declared persons that they then become liable for taxes?
This may solve some of our economic issues!

Re:They'll have rights

[ClickOnThis]

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.

Cool

[Greyfox]

10000 Quatloos to the first person to gay marry a chimpanzee.

SystemD Support?

[dnebin]

If the chimps are given personhood, will they back the systemd movement? I'd hate to see a chimp war started over whether systemd is good or evil...

simple test

[ihtoit]

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/...

Even by the scope of the test, it can easily be demonstrated that chimpanzees and other apes are legally incapable. If this case succeeds we will have handed the apes the fucking keys.

Re:They'll have rights

[Dynedain]

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.

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 have come to the conclusion that "animal rights" is inherently fictitious. Much like "innate rights" or "inalienable rights" for humans, we are merely appeasing our culturally-developed sense of morality, ethics, and guilt.

That's not to say those motivating factors aren't good things. In fact, quite the opposite. Clearly there is an evolutionary advantage to social cooperation and baseline rules of morality, otherwise we would not have developed these sociological phenomenon, let alone have the capacity to articulate and discuss them.

More tangibly, this reluctance to abuse other species with certain characteristics is what lead to the domestication of cooperatively useful species (dogs, cats, cattle, etc). But our moral compulsion should not be mistaken for some sort of universally true innate "right".

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[ihtoit]

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 rights.

source: vast legal experience including background in cases similar to the Paccieri baby snatch, where the fetus was taken to order to feed the adoption market.

Re:They'll have rights

[ihtoit]

the British Government already did that with the institution of the Court of Protection: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Re:They'll have rights

[ihtoit]

until they take their first breath, nope.

Must be frustrating...

[Empiric]

...having a metaphysics that is logically and ethically incoherent.

and I'll be right there with you as soon as

[Anonymous Coward]

you "pro-choice" folks start being honest about the word "contraception". Most "pro-life" people do not oppose the use of actual conception blocking devices BY CONCENTING ADULTS (we do not, however, like it when you go behind our backs and push the stuff on our kids). Non-Catholic "pro-life" people have no objection to the prevention of conception, they just object to murdering a human being, which is what you get after conception occurs.

Catholics have a whole other set of issues that most protestants do not, which cause them to object to things most protestants are fine with - and not being one I'll leave that to some Catholic poster to defend.

Pro-choicers far too often play the little game of claiming that even abortifacients are "contraception", which was how they stirred so much outrage over the "Hobby Lobby" court case; Hobby Lobby was willing to (and had a long history of) provide coverage for actual contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, they just refused to cover abortion or abortifacients (drugs that chemically kill an unborn child).

Re:and I'll be right there with you as soon as

[RoccamOccam]

Too bad that you posted as AC. This post is the best one in the whole thread.

Re:They'll have rights

[KarmaPolice]

Would it count as jobs if they made money as research chimps? ...oh wait...

Re:They'll have rights

[pspahn]

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 how transparently they're trying to make abortion illegal.

Re:They'll have rights

[msobkow]

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.

Invertebrate rights now!

[Biff Stu]

Just say no to escargot!

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[SuricouRaven]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[SuricouRaven]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[SuricouRaven]

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:They'll have rights

[SuricouRaven]

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:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[Karmashock]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what you think, but anonymous surveys show quite a different picture.

What this isn't about...

[jandersen]

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:What this isn't about...

[soccerisgod]

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?

[Jorgensen]

I'd be surprised if this can be decided at the New York State court level.... Surely this is an issue for congress? (yeah - pun uttterly intended. Thanks. I'll be here all week)

Re:You are highly confused

[ihtoit]

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:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[markass530]

if very few of those are anti-contraception then why is abstinence-only education so prevalent?

Re:The Chim Thing

[Barsteward]

oh dear... a cockroach has escaped and is typing in /.

How about an unborn fetus?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Chimps have rights maybe we can extend this to an unborn (human) child? At least for the right to live... nah, what am I thinking. Chimp fetuses will probably get more protections than human fetuses. It's all a matter of convenience in today's self-absorbed age!

Obligatory

[nospam007]

Ooooook!

Does that mean they'll get to vote?

[Kvasio]

Chimps and baboons have passive voting rights already. Remember GWB?

Personhood for an AI ?

[TerryC101]

At some point this will play out in the courts when an AI start to approach human levels of intelligence. Will we use the chimpanzee case as a precedent?

Re:They'll have rights

[CrimsonAvenger]

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"

Personally, I think that in the case you describe, the charges should be one count of manslaughter and one count of performing an abortion without a license.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[AmiMoJo]

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:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[Karmashock]

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 speak will be individuals. And since associations will be silenced, the only individuals that will be heard will be elites. Billionaires and movie stars.

You can't just cut the corps out and arbitrarily leave the other associations with access without some sort of reason. Simply saying "these groups agree with me and this other group doesn't" just means you're silencing your opposition.

Think about it.

This attack on the corps has been a rather tired argument thrown around for years. It isn't especially interesting is it?

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing that you stated is true.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[jimbolauski]

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.

The problem with this is that when you boil it down a corporation is just a group of people. That group of people pools their money together and buys adds or donates to politicians in ways that benefit the goals of their group. The rights of a person do not decrease when they are in a group. I would much rather corrupt politicians get removed from office then start limiting speech.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[tehcyder]

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.

That's nothing to do with them being legal persons or not.

I think you must have some romantic libertarian idea that the world should be composed of individual entrepreneurs in a free market.

If you abandoned the legal concept of a limited liability corporation, rich people would just arrange their businesses as partnerships, joint trading companies, informal cartels or some other artificial construction. As soon as a business grows past the size that one person can control, you have de facto corporations anyway.

Short of the government making it illegal to act in business as other than a sole trader, I don't see what you could do about it.

Humanzee

[wisnoskij]

I always wondered. These wackjobs or obviously crazy enough and these legal routes are obviously never going to get them anywhere, even they must know that.

Why not just reopen some of the long abandoned Human/Ape interbreeding studies? All it would probably take in one open minded woman and a little access to a Ape. And even if worst came to worst, and we were not that compatible, all they would need is one fertility specialist and access to some fertility equipment. It would not cost that much, even if they could not find a volunteer to do it for free.

Re:Humanzee

[LWATCDR]

ummm...
Humans an apes do not have the same number of chromosomes. They can not breed. To make a combination of human and great ape you would need to do a lot of genetic engineering.
It would take a lot more than a fertility specialist to pull that off.

Re:Humanzee

[wisnoskij]

Humans do not have the same number of chromosomes as other humans, and can still breed fine with them.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[Talderas]

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.

Here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they also have duties and responsibilities, or only rights?

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[Major Blud]

So if the father didn't want the baby, but the woman did, he shouldn't have to pay child support, right?

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Same thing for Unions.

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[laie_techie]

I'll start being pro-life when the pro-life folk stop being anti-contraception.

I'm all for preventing conception (the pill, condoms, surgeries, etc), but firmly believe that once fertilization takes place the zygote should be protected in most cases (one obvious exception is a pregnancy resulting from rape). Only subgroups in the pro-life camp (such as the Catholic Church) speak out against contraception. Even though I use contraceptives myself, I believe that students be taught that abstinence is the only contraceptive method which is 100% effective all the time. Teach the risks of each method (for example, a small number of condoms tear) so students can make an informed decision. Don't use scare tactics or guilt trips.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[Sigmon]

Amen and Amen! I think these (potentially) well-meaning people that want to ban corporations from participating in any kind of political process don't really think their idea though all the way. They THINK they are promoting free-speech... but, in fact, they would simply silence somebody (or a group of people) with whom they disagree. The true test of whether or not one truly adheres to the concept of 'free speech' is his or her reaction when somebody expresses an idea or promotes something with which one disagrees.

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[lgw]

Because it's pretty normal for parents to believe their kids are perfect angels?

Circular reasoning

[hey!]

Well, dismissing the suit because iof this kind of technicality is certainly feasible, but the reasoning behind it is circular.

If someone's legal status of "person" isn't recognized by the courts, then it is likely NOBODY can have the standing to bring suit on their behalf. There is, in a purely technical sense, there is nobody TO bring a suit on behalf of.

It turns out there are *other* grounds for establishing standing. It's not necessary to show that you are directly affected by some action to bring a First Amendment suit against a government entity for example. Such a suit brought on 14th Amendment "due process" grounds would put the court in a bind: it could not dismiss the suit because of standing without, in effect, making a ruling, or at least a determination.

We may well be forced to clarify the basis of indvidual "personhood" in the law by advancing technology; possibly AI, possibly even biotechnology. What if research into intelligence enhancement produced a chimp that could score above 100 on an IQ test that had been devised to handle humans with speech loss? Would it be reasonable to deny that chimp legal personhood while allowing someone who'd had a stroke to retain his? Why?

Re:Circular reasoning

[mjm1231]

You are completely right that this is a complex issue with more questions than answers, but making IQ the qualifier for which organisms (and just to add to the complexity, collection of organisms would be more accurate) are "persons" would remove that designation from a large number who currently hold it.

Primate research will be moved offshore

[Anonymous Coward]

If these lawsuits succeed, primate research will not stop. Instead, it will be moved offshore. To other countries that might have fewer animal protections than the United States.

Just like if we stop drilling for oil on our soil, drilling will be moved to some other country. Where environmental protections might be laxer than here.

Primate research, petroleum exploration and drilling, manufacturing...we can do these things here, in the United States, where we have laws that offer reasonable protection against environmental damage and exploitation. Or, we can make them so onerous to do here, that we push them offshore to jurisdictions that offer fewer protections than we do. But stopping them altogether isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future.

Re:You are highly confused

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

The belief that abortion should be considered murder is absolutely fucking retarded, though.

Re:They'll have rights

[luis_a_espinal]

Plenty of mentally and physically handicapped people hold down jobs of varying levels of sophistication.

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.

Barring voting and access to booze, smokes and pr0n, I didn't know that children had less rights than adults. Who knew?

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[cyberchondriac]

Oh, that's easy. because they had unprotected sex and didn't have the education for how to use contraception.

Independent voter here. I usually vote for moderate Republicans, Independents, or moderate Democrats.

Politically, I'm probably similar to you, (personally I lean slightly right yet am not pro-life, and anti-contraception is just insanely stupid, but hey, catholics) but I never got why using contraception requires special education and how that's an excuse. How friggin' hard is it to put on a condom, insert a diaphragm, or get birth control pills from a doctor? That requires lessons??
Or is that someone is that clueless or stupid that they are totally unaware that sex can cause pregnancy- in which case we may have even more serious problems. You'd have to be cut off from the Internet, TV, classmates and friends, and live in a bubble. I don't buy it. I don't think the problem is (lack of) education, it's just simple willful disregard. And to be fair, I remember well what raging hormones feels like, so I can sort of understand how the heat of the moment trumps their better sense in some cases.

Rights vs. Right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we skip the 'rights' BS and just go with what is 'right'?

By this, I means the basic morality that everyone sort of starts out with, then we lose sight in the semantics.

Should a chimp have the right to not be abused? Beats me. Is it not right to abuse a chimp? Yes.

Standards of decency used to allow for this, but, now, we've redefined that by some religious imperative, so now we've got people that want to give things 'rights' since that's how we define it.

Re:You are highly confused

[ihtoit]

what the fuck are you drivelling on with beards? And FYI, arbitrary definitions is what the legal system fucking FUNCTIONS ON.

Re:They'll have rights

[almitydave]

It's sad that the internet is now at the point where we assume replies are going to be arguments and not agreements.

Wait... when wasn't it?

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[TemporalBeing]

Now that babies are born to people who are poor

One problem...pro-lifers advocate giving the children up for adoption instead of killing the child in-utero. In other words, responsibility after birth as well.

On the other hand, abortions have nothing to do with the health and safety of the mother - it's medically proven that that is not the case, both physically and psychologically - except in extreme cases that most pro-lifers would still allow abortions to occur under. The big issue comes down the embroynic stem cells that are generated and the inability to get them from pretty much any other source.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[AmiMoJo]

I really don't see how limiting what corporations can do would limit the rights of individuals. An individual who works for a corporation could say what they like and spend as much of their own money as they like when not acting in an official capacity.

It's like discrimination laws. As an individual you can have nothing to do with gay people, refuse to even talk to them. As a business and a member of staff you must serve them and not discriminate. I really don't see any problem with that, because businesses are a special case and not people.

Re:They'll have rights

[almitydave]

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.

More tangibly, this reluctance to abuse other species with certain characteristics is what lead to the domestication of cooperatively useful species (dogs, cats, cattle, etc). But our moral compulsion should not be mistaken for some sort of universally true innate "right".

It seems like these questions are at the forefront more and more these days: what is a right, where do they come from, and how do we know? And your comment touches on another very important point relevant to this thread: animals do have jobs, we just don't pay them a salary beyond food and care. Think of animals in agriculture and transportation, hunters' assistants, seeing-eye dogs and other service animals. Heck, they're even actors. Animals can be said to have jobs in the same way humans do, and in fact we've been working hand-in-paw with them for as long as we can remember.

I know some animal-rights organizations love to call these types of animals "slaves" but there's clearly something different between humans and animals. It just becomes very difficult to pin it down as something other than a matter of degree when we don't even clearly understand the nature of our own consciousness.

Personally, I don't believe animals have rights - I do however believe that we have responsibilities toward the animals, and are under moral obligation not to cause undue suffering. Experimenting on animals is therefore ethically a very sticky area.

BTW, there's a very good graphic novel about Laika that's historically accurate, based on information that became declassified after the fall of the Soviet Union. It's targeted toward adolescents, but worth a read.

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[TemporalBeing]

Just playing devil's advocate, but you need to look at the medical information out there...

b) Rape babies should be aborted. Period. Why force someone to endure that, only to have them be reminded of their rapist, or have the baby put in a foster home/adoption.

Because as medical and psychological studies have proven it is healthier for the mother.

Abortion has a very nasty depression side-effect psychologically.

Abortion is almost always not safe to perform outside of the early cases like the morning-after pill.

Assault

[adiposity]

Are we going to put them in prison when they assault someone?

Re:Assault

[nbritton]

Are we going to put them in prison when they assault someone?

No because they would be judged mentally incompetent to stand trial. You would commit them if they were a danger to others.

Competence

[nbritton]

I feel they should be given the same rights as mentally incompetent persons. In particular, they should be given the right to have a conservator appointed; this would benefit them because it is usually crime for a conservator to take advantage of a conservatee. If they are granted personhood status, I would anticipate they would be entitled to SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps. They should also be entitled to make, at least, minimum wage for any work they perform.

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[Trogre]

Interesting.

So your position is that a woman should have the right to kill her offspring if it is convenient for her to do so. Now I assume that you don't think that anyone else should have the right to kill her offspring if they wish to.

Therefore your argument boils down to the belief that the life of a child has no value unless the mother says it does.

No matter what *you* think, that is a deplorably barbaric position.

Re:Chimps have rights, babies don't

[digsbo]

Haven't you already noticed how weak social conservatism is getting in the GOP? Many, many people have abandoned that mode of thinking. It's one of the reasons the GOP continues to lose even in the face of the pro-war, pro-bank Democrats: The fiscal conservatives and genuinely small government (even out-of-the-bedroom, anti-war small government) are splintering off from the necons and religious right, and choosing to lose to Democrats instead. Lots of people under 40 who are fiscal conservatives, anti-police state, anti-war, and have no issues at all with social liberalism are continuing not to vote for the extreme right wing.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[Talderas]

Corporations have had the same rights as people. It was started in 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward where corporations were held to have the same rights as people for making and enforcing contracts. In 1968 the NAACP v. Button declared that the NAACP's 1st Amendment rights were protected under the 14th's equal proection clause. The 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti said the the speech did not lose protection because its source was a corporation that could prove an effect on its business (previously a corporation was only afford speech that impacted its business). They did rule that political spending by a corporation was not permitted in 1990 and 2003 but those rulings were essentially overruled with Citizen's United because permitting press corporations while denying other corporations free speech was violating the 14th as established by earlier cases. You also can't limit it to for profit corporations since PACS would still exist and are protected from it by the non-profit news organizations.

In 1876 the court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political spending and political speech are interrelated. Money = speech. So you can't restrict the former without restricting the latter and thus running into a free speech issue. As we know from NAACP v. Button, corporation free speech rights can't be restricted.

Thus the only logical conclusion of our laws and decisions is that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. If you want to change it you need to go back and get some of the key decisions overturned. May I suggest Buckley v. Valeo as a starting point?

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[XxtraLarGe]

I continually see people bring up unions in response to someone saying corporate spending should be limited. I don't think I've ever seen someone actually advocate for an exemption for unions from the limitations. So are you saying that you agree with his statement and just want to be clear that unions are included or was it just a partisan "if they go after something I like, I'll target something I think they like"?

No. Just look at this page. Every restriction or permission for corporations is the same as unions. The difference being, unions can take money from their members to spend on campaign issues that their members may not necessarily support.

Re:Stop trolling and learn to use Google.

[Karmashock]

I have to assume he would exclude associations because the notion that he would forbid all associations of people from having such influence is as absurd as it is politically impossible.

The problem with this corporate personhood whine is that it is ultimately nothing more then a talking point fed to impressionable children that don't understand the issues.

They don't know that the corps are basically just associations of people. That the distinction between for profit and not for profit is one very easily twisted. And that really the only way to stop corps from influencing politics is to forbid all associations. Which means the world wildlife foundation etc would not be allowed to petition the government. Sound like that is going to work? Obviously not.

And even if you were crazy enough to try and it somehow made it through congress... all you would have done is given total power to elite individuals because the most powerful people in the country would then be billionaires, movie stars, and other people that are individually able to influence.

In effect, banning corporations would make the resulting political environment less democratic. And why furthermore should a corp not be allowed to petition? They pay taxes. They follow the same laws. The laws effect them. Why shouldn't they be allowed to say "hey that law is bullshit." Just like any other group?

Re:Mod this douchetard DOWN

[Karmashock]

Which you say while remaining an anonymous coward.

Too much of a coward to even use a fake name on the internet and you want to know who is modding me up or down?

Dude... get over yourself. If you have a problem with me, explain why. If all you've got is "SILENCE THE INFIDEL" then get bent.

Re: here's a start

[Karmashock]

As to executing corporations, you could say the same thing for any association. Non-profits and unions aren't executed either.

As to corps committing felonies and simply paying fines for it, can you please give a specific example so we can examine it please? In most cases, my understanding is that it is a civil matter which is often handled with a fine indifferent to did it.
As to having more resources to avoid legal problems, you can say that about rich people, government agencies, or really anyone powerful. That isn't specific to corporations.

As to corporations not eating, they absolutely do eat. Every employee must be paid. Shareholders must be rewarded. Taxes must be paid. Etc... all of that goes to your overhead or burn rate or bottom line. You feed/pay that or starve/die.

As to not sleeping, they have business hours and non-business hours in most cases. At least for many sorts of decisions and operations. Corporations have preferred hours of operation which is largely dictated by when certain employees are at work.

As to not experiencing emotion, they are a group entity so it is hard to say what emotions are being felt on average from one moment to the next. However, the individuals at the companies obviously do have emotions and certain members are in over all executive control of the company. What is more, if you've ever listened to a management discussion at a company, you know there are emotions.

Steven Jobs was famous for going off into rages at people. Rage is an emotion. And Apple has shown itself from time to time to be a very angry company especially in regards to Android and Google. Apple's behavior often doesn't make good business sense. A lot of it is down to the feelings and values of the senior management.

Apple recently told shareholders that if they don't want to support renewable energy then they shouldn't invest in Apple. Think about that.

So companies do have emotions and values because they are made up of people that likewise have emotions and values.

As to companies not having human weaknesses... you must be kidding. How many dumb things have you seen companies do over the years and you're going to tell me they don't have human weaknesses? This whole paragraph from you was ill considered and really did nothing more then show both your ignorance of corporate governance and your prejudice towards something which you honestly do not understand.

I don't say that to be offensive. But you're saying things that are simply wrong.

As to corporations not being permitted to engage in the political process, why should they be forbidden and other associations permitted to do so? What basis rooted in the US constitution are you using to make that argument? Because your idea would have to pass the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure it would fail if this is all you've got.

As to having a right to communicate with congress, what about releasing criticism of politicians during election cycles? That is, do these organizations have a right to talk to the public and try to influence their voting patterns? Say things like "we at the anti whatever group would like you to know that politician X won't sign our anti whatever bill. Do not vote for politician X. Instead vote for politician Y who has said publicly to be in favor of anti whatever legislation."

If you say that is not okay you're going to run into major freedom of speech/freedom of association issues.

I really don't think you can get this sort of thing passed. I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of the issue.

Re:They'll have rights

[ihtoit]

I'm with you on that. Maybe we should ask Ted Kennedy, who seems more than qualified to comment having performed a 118th trimester abortion himself on Mary Jo Kopechne.

Lawyers

[AndyCanfield]

I'll believe it the day that the chimpanzees show up in court and their lawyers are chimpanzees also. The practical definition of "human" is "anyone who can sue you."

Re:They'll have rights

[drinkypoo]

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?

Yet another drinkypoo strawman.

People who are highly physically disabled cannot fend for themselves. By the above statement, they "should" have fewer rights — what purpose does "should" serve here except to deny rights which they possibly could have, as opposed to things which you mistake for rights like sight or vision. Guess what? No one has the right to sight or vision. You have the right not to be blinded or made deaf, and if someone does cause one of those things to happen to you, you have the right to seek redress.

Nobody has to tell them they can't do those things; it's just their reality.

And yet, none of those things are rights.

In particular, no distinction is being drawn between natural rights and legal rights. Personally, I don't believe in natural rights. There are no such things. Absent a right to life which you clearly do not have (everything dies, or can die) in any sense (our government terminates people's lives all the time, which puts the absolute lie to the idea of a "right to life" in any legal context) you really have no other rights. Thus, the only rights you have are those which are legally guaranteed and then in fact legally protected. Not as a concept, but in fact; the legal system must act to protect those rights if you are to claim to have them. Every single so-called right in the bill of rights can now be denied under the authority of one or more obscenely obviously unconstitutional bodies of law like the U SAP AT RIOT act or NDAA. But I digress.

The question remains, of which rights should the severely physically disabled be deprived? Because clearly nobody was suggesting that we ought to bend 100% of the output of our civilization to bring sight to the blind before solving any other problems. The only reason to suggest that people who cannot fend for themselves (which includes the set "severely physically disabled people") "should" have less rights than other people is if you have some rights in mind of which they should be deprived.

When will we be able to vote for chimps?

[Cro Magnon]

Because, frankly, I'd rather have a chimp in the White House than most of the humans we've had.

Re: here's a start

[Karmashock]

Failing to give specific examples makes it impossible for you to back up your point. Sadly this means the discussion ends with you failing to clarify your point.

Next time you want to discuss something like this with another person that might have ANY idea different from your own... you might consider that being clear is an important part of communication.

As to laziness. It isn't my responsibility to make YOUR argument for you. I run the risk of straw-manning you by accident if I try to do that. So I ask you to define your own argument. This not only gives you control over your own argument it also reduces the likelihood that I'll misunderstand or misrepresent your position.

Anyway... since I doubt you're going to reverse course and give specific examples... I guess we're done.

Cya.

Re:They'll have rights

[david_thornley]

If abortions are murder, then any miscarriage or stillbirth should be investigated to some extent, and if found to be related to negligent the non-mother would be guilty of negligent homicide. It would be illegal to perform an abortion even to save the life of the mother.

Philosophically, I have no justification for treating a fetus as a human iff the mother wants to, but it seems to yield results I find reasonable.

Re: here's a start

[Karmashock]

Your argument is still forfeit. You know those citations are laughable in this context.

I asked for a specific example and you cited a paper and some 20 page memorandium.

From this I cannot get your point. I cannot understand what your argument is... you have no specific example.

It would be like if I responded to your point by dropping an encyclopedia in front of you and then saying my argument was in there somewhere.

Get real.

Either have the courage to make your argument without evasion or concede.

I'm almost certain this is a sad rhetorical technique. You know your argument is weak and you know that if examined you might not be able to carry the argument. So rather then engage and let the chips fall where they may... you are determined to keep the matter so vague that I can't nail you down.

Fine... you fail to make a clear argument then. And citing these two links doesn't make your argument clearer. I don't even need links from you. I want you to explain what you mean specifically with specific examples. I am very happy to look it up on google or whatever myself after you have done that. But you must be clear or I have no confidence that you even have a point.

Hands are tied here unless you are going to make a clear argument.

Re: here's a start

[Karmashock]

I'm not a troll. I made a comment on the issue in good faith and you said you disagreed but refused to say why specifically.

I asked for evidence and you said I should use google when all I wanted you to do was to clearly explain your position.

Eventually, you posted some totally useless links to very long winded sources and provided no pointers as to what you wanted me to look at within them. I woudl have been very happy to read PORTIONS of those sources if you cited them. But you seem to be saying that if I dont' read your sources in their entirity that I am unworthy of intellectual regard.

You sir are in fact the troll. As much is obvious to anyone with a clue. As to our relative value as human beings, it would be very sad indeed if our moment of judgement as people were determined entirely by a stupid thread on slashdot. That you think that is a valid judgment of a person's whole life really just goes to the core of your own moral shallowness.

Calm down, little man. Your petty opinions on this board are as nothing to the rest of your life. I hope that outside of this you're a better person and I wish that hopefully better person a good life. As to the troll that you have animated this board... this persona you're displaying here... Lets hope that gets retired. It is without utility.

Animals

[Sciath]

We already have chimps (and other animals) running the country that have the right to vote. I might even suggest that chimpanzees (or dolphins) are more human (in thought or behavior) than many of our so-called powerful and wealthy. Because humans that are wealthy and/or powerful can be more inhumane than chimps or dolphins.