Slashdot Mirror
Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person"
First time accepted submitter Andrio writes In an unprecedented decision, an Argentine court has ruled that the Sumatran orangutan 'Sandra', who has spent 20 years at the zoo in Argentina's capital Buenos Aires, should be recognized as a person with a right to freedom. The ruling, signed by the judges unanimously, would see Sandra freed from captivity and transferred to a nature sanctuary in Brazil after a court recognized the primate as a "non-human person" which has some basic human rights. The Buenos Aires zoo has 10 working days to seek an appeal." A similar case involving chimpanzees failed to provide "non-human person" status here in the U.S. earlier this month.
It's official:
Monkeys now have more rights than 21st century American citizens.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Argentina has truly earned the title "Banana Republic".
Maybe this has an effect on the photograph rights case.
How we treat animals, children, and people "weaker" than ourselves says a lot more about *our* humanity than theirs. Is it okay to torture animals for our benefit? What if you are making medicine to save human lives? What if you are making a new shade of lipstick?
For this to happen here. Then, I will sign various contracts with the monkeys and sue their family/owners :D
Personhood comes with rights and duties. What are the duties of this orangutan?
Time for another scopes monkey trial!
*Scratch*
*Flingpoo*
Anyone got a banana?
Of course, this is how it starts.
Next thing we know: Planet of the Apes!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If a human were to literally act exactly like an ape, we'd lock that person up for either being a criminal or insane.
And the human would be more intelligent.
... out in full force... How defensive you get... terrified of facing your feelings, aren't you...
So what's it like, being a sociopath and unable to feel the suffering of others, but having to pretend, every day, that you actually give a stuff about anybody but yourself? Work colleague tells you one of their parents has just died: reel out the script, "I'm so sorry", blah blah blah, and PRETEND that you care...
What's that like? Being unable to feel others' suffering?
The reason this case went to court was to SAVE an innocent creature from suffering. How terrible. But then, almost all of Slashdot readers aren't vegan, and couldn't care less about the untold suffering of billions of animals every YEAR, who are tortured and killed so they can avoid questioning why they eat what they eat. After all, you might have to admit you were wrong, and that would be just terrible, wouldn't it... The suffering of thousands of animals is nothing compared to your precious feelings, right?
is not whether or not animals are persons, but whether or not we can give ourselves every rights to subdue, restrain, decide of the life or death, and/or mutilation (commonly known as "fixing") of other living being. If you see this on a consent point of view, there is no way an animal can give consent in human terms. In most case, even if the animal gave consent it might not be relevant, as the animal is in direct dependence on humans for his bare survival, as it has been "trained" (and to some extend dumbed down) to be loyal to human. On this moral point of view, I object to pet ownership. Though, at the same time, I have no problem with the perspective to eat horse, dog, cat, rabbit, hare, squirrels meat (or other "cute" animals).
Deporting her to a country she has never been in seems a strange thing to do. Don't people complain when you do that to human people - deporting people who have only ever lived in whatever country their parent illegally migrated to. Heck it's not even the "native" country of the species in question...
So surely just set her free into the streets of whatever city the zoo is in.
Should they send it to the Planet of the Apes?
That an orangutan will not try to eat you. Chimps can and will.
If these creatures get legal self identity, then are they also legally required to obey our laws?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
tru dat. one look at dubya and you KNOW he's related to Sandra.
Just wait until Quantum Physics turns you into a monkey.
The odds are incredibly small, but the rest of eternity is a long time.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Will the orangutan be an Argentine citizen?
Look up "Washoe". Being able to communicate, even if only by sign language, is important. The average chimp doesn't communicate much better than other ordinary animals, like dogs. And humans can fail to be communicative, look up "feral child". The point here is that humans are naturally prejudiced in favor of themselves, thinking that characteristics associated with personhood (like communicative-ness) are automatically/naturally associated with biological growth. But the fact is (at least here on Earth), communicative-ness at the person-class level is a result of Nurture, not Nature. As a result, if certain other organisms also receive appropriate Nurture (like Washoe did), then those organisms are as likely as a human to qualify for personhood. So now look up Koko the Gorilla and Chantek the Orangutan. Equally logically, any organisms that don't receive appropriate Nurture, including humans, are going to qualify more as ordinary animals than as persons. (The default Natural condition, per biological development only, for a human is to be just a clever animal.)
Wondering; what are these "basic human rights" that actual human babies are denied at the rate of 50 million a year?
Take for example the right to freedom. Nobody has to take care of the orangutan for it to exercise this right. But for a baby to exercise its right to freedom, it has to be nurtured for around 18 years or so, and that's much too inconvenient. It takes work and selfless sacrifice, both of which suck. (Speaking as a parent of one, and another on the way)
So how exactly does this make us more compassionate people? When we're willing to free a monkey because it's easy, and prefer to to stop a human heart because keeping it alive is harder?
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
So it's a corporation?
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Ever consider humans do live without all the requirements you've listed to be a human above? It's called primitive living.
That's right, your ilk have no idea what that's about being behind a cubicle the last 30 years.
Because when a fetus is in a women's body it is part of her body. And she can do what she wants to her body. End of story.
These are two completely different subjects and you're really reaching here to tie this into abortion law.
So this court in Argentina declared:
1) This orangutan is a person
2) Decreed that she be banished from civilization immediately. I.E. "Freed"
Didn't anyone ASK this supposed person what they wanted?
Nature doesn't really gives a shit about diversity. It has killed more species over the existence of earth than humans will ever do. The only thing really wiped out by a nuclear holocaust would be the human race, and a few hundreds species of mammals. Which is, all things considered, just a dent in the amount of life present on earth...
Ask Dick Cheney. He gives a shit.
Law? How shortsighted! No; it's about what we value, and how we make choices about life and death, and what makes us human.
That woman opened up her body to her mate and that little person ended up there through no fault of its own. Mommy and daddy decided to ignore basic human physiology and now it is, in fact, the end of the story for that kid that ends up like it went through a blender. Your hand is a part of your body; ever tried to put your hand in a blender?
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
It'll be great to charge the live cattle and sheep exporters as non-human traffickers now, to prevent the appalling conditions on those ships.
I would suspect that the ruling was in spanish and did not use the English word person. Perhaps it was persona? These ruling are somewhat about what words mean. Or what they meant to lawmakers when they wrote laws using those words. Argentine law is based on Spanish legal tradition and things like the Napoleonic code. (as opposed to English common law in the USA)
Nobody has to take care of the orangutan for it to exercise this right. But for a baby to exercise its right to freedom, it has to be nurtured for around 18 years or so, and that's much too inconvenient.
Assuming that you're referring to actual babies that have been born, then they still have human rights that their parents or legal guardians can't deny them. For example, you can't lock up your kid in a cage, even though other more reasonable limits on the freedom of movement are allowed. Generally speaking, it's okay so long as it's in their interest. Similarly, in this story, they're not letting the orangutan go where it wants, but admitting that the current arrangement is definitely not in its interest.
That woman opened up her body to her mate and that little person ended up there through no fault of its own.
I got crabs from your sister. Do I have to wait until they leave on their own?
Assuming that you're referring to actual babies that have been born...
It seems you too are missing the point, just like the aptly named Anonymous Coward above. Why was this actual baby born, or why should it not be? The criteria used to answer this question is at the heart of the matter, and you're standing on legal definitions.
"Congratulations, new human! We've decided not to run you through the blender! Since you've made it this far, here are your inalienable rights!"
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
You yourself talked about "until they reach 18 years of age"; abortion is clearly but one aspect of this, and arguably not the biggest one by far (there are far more children who are born, but have their rights limited until they are of age, than aborted fetuses).
I didn't want to touch on abortion for the simple reason that it's vastly more complicated - there's the issue of when you start considering a fetus a person (it is obvious to any rational person that a fertilized egg or an embryo is not a person in any meaningful way, while a pre-birth fetus is; but where do you draw the line in between?). There's also the sticking issue of the fetus, regarding of any rights it may have as a person, potentially infringing on its mother's rights to her body. Reconciling those two rights is not obvious.
In any case, none of this has anything to do with this particular case.
that Argentinians are non-person humans.
The German pigs established animal rights in 1933 before attempting to wipe out humanity's only teachers of morality.
one source: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960201&slug=2311809
She should sue for 20 years of back pay from the zoo at $5/hr with interest and penalties. That's roughly $637805 plus penalties. Let's call it $3m.
Jesus Christ.. your're an absolutely pedantic fuck stick.
No, I haven't put my hand in a blender, but if I wanted to it would be my right to do so.
Okay. So now Sandra is entitled to welfare and liable in civil suits as well as criminally responsible. Good move, judge idiot. She will now need to be put under conservatorship and either need income from a welfare program or from the zoo itself. That income may make her liable for taxes as well for example if her accomodations, veterinary and food costs at the zoo are high which they could be for a primate animal. Are you going to prepare her tax papers every year, judge idiot?
This is stupid. Yes primates may have a lot in common with us but they are not like us and Sandra will never live in our society without assistance. She belongs where her kinds lives, that is the rain forests and the jungles of this world.
Yes, I am willing to admit that Sandra is a person, she thinks, feels, makes plans, tells lies and listens to music, but she does not have the scope to invoke rights and it is not proper for anyone to aid her in claiming rights on her behalf. That doesnt mean other people may not have rights to her as property, but of course if you shut the door on that one too, judge, she is going to come and live with you because the zoo can not accomodate her anymore. You pay her bills, you pay her vet, you feed her and you pick up her doodoo droppings and you file her taxes and everything else she needs to do and we will have adult protective services over every 2 weeks to check on her care,
I have thought on this often and equality to humanity should be measured in terms of what sets us apart from Sandra. The ability to abstract and to use language is one part of that.
If other non-human persons came to us say from another star system, that would be different. In this
case we would have individuals that are either around, equal or maybe even above our average levels
of intelligence and they would be fully capable to fill out the paperwork for unemployment assistance
and should by all means receive it if they meet the same eligibility standards like everybody else.
It's seems perfectly plausible to me that an adult great ape might be a "person" but a blastula with a couple of dozen cells is not, nor a one ounce fetus at the end of the first trimester. The baby's brain at birth will weigh more than a dozen times that at birth.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Law? How shortsighted! No; it's about what we value, and how we make choices about life and death, and what makes us human.
That woman opened up her body to her mate and that little person ended up there through no fault of its own. Mommy and daddy decided to ignore basic human physiology and now it is, in fact, the end of the story for that kid that ends up like it went through a blender. Your hand is a part of your body; ever tried to put your hand in a blender?
That's the way you see it and you're trying to present it as fact. It's not. It's interpretation.
Don't believe me? Have your appendix burst. Suddenly you'll see a very real circumstance where removal of a body part is trivial and not a matter for ethical consideration.
You've decided that "personhood" begins at conception. Well, other people don't see a single fertilized cell as a human being. This isn't a topic that can be defined in rigid blacks & whites. At the single-cell stage, what you've got is a non-viable life form.
Here's another way to look at it... if you take a full-functioning adult human, scoop out their brain and leave the rest on life support, do you have a person anymore? I'd hope we can agree the answer is no. Well then, at the single-cell stage, you don't have a brain, so you don't have a person. Somewhere along the line, cell-division starts to specialize and eventually there's a little bundle of brain cells. Say there's... a hundred specialized brain cells. Nothing that is capable of cogitation, so again, I'd think we can agree that we don't have a person. Somewhere along the line, things gather enough complexity to support personality, thought, self-awareness, and personhood. That may - or may not - be at 9 months/birth. To allege that a person exists much prior to birth is... questionable, not a given.
"Oh no... he found the
I've always found that country to be extremely progressive, forward looking, and mature, not to mention independent.
[nt]
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you're going to use the compassion angle, a 20 year old orangutan most likely has self awareness and memories. Can the same be said about what you're referencing?
Who is killing babies?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
if you take a full-functioning adult human, scoop out their brain and leave the rest on life support, do you have a person anymore? I'd hope we can agree the answer is no. Well then, at the single-cell stage, you don't have a brain, so you don't have a person. Somewhere along the line, cell-division starts to specialize and eventually there's a little bundle of brain cells. Say there's... a hundred specialized brain cells. Nothing that is capable of cogitation, so again, I'd think we can agree that we don't have a person. Somewhere along the line, things gather enough complexity to support personality, thought, self-awareness, and personhood. That may - or may not - be at 9 months/birth.
Keep in mind that the difference between your two examples is that - all things being equal - one will result in a new brain being formed, and thus is different from the other which will never grow a new brain.
In other news, there's a new librarian at the National Library of Buenos Aires. When asked about his perspective of the future of the library, the new librarian commented: "Ook!".
Ook indeed, Sir, and congratulations on your new position.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
The court do not rules the orangutan is a non-human person, the court declared the orangutan a non-human subject, that's a subtle difference on text that makes a huge interpretation difference between a human and the orangutan in the Argentinean law. This is about misinterpretation of the news.
I don't have any rights because of my consciousness, my emotions, or my intelligence, I have rights because I was born of two humans. It does not matter if I was brain dead, it does not matter what my genetics, my form, or my brain looks like. It is possible my exact dna could be grown a lab, and I would not even be considered a person, but instead a possession. So by what legal reasoning could an Orangutan be considered a person, any more than a rock? How does a court have any say, this seems like something that up to the law makers, not the law enforcers.
Is it completely different in Argentina? Do they base personhood off of intelligence or something? Are retarded humans considered Animals there?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Orangutina?
Aorangutina?
Argengutanga?
Ah, nevermind.
Oh wait.... "a non human person" ? Is that like "jumbo shrimp" or "pretty ugly" :-)
where's his stockholders? who's his CEO? what lobbyists does he hire?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You chose to do it. End of sympathy.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"