Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person"

Posted by samzenpus on from the I-wanna-be-like-you-hoo-hoo dept.

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.

7 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Monkey Business by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This leads to an obvious followup question...

    If this ape is a person then who is responsible for his care and feeding? Normally, an adult person is responsible for their own care and feeding including any required payment.

    Will he be on the dole? Will he manage his own money? Will he do his own grocery shopping and cooking? Will he have a lease? Does he know he's supposed to use the toilet? Can he use the toilet? Can he manage putting on his own diapers if not?

    Is this ape going to get a job? Or will it still remain effectively a sub-human in a different type of cage?

    It looks like not much really changed here...

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. That seems strange by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That seems strange by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think there's probably a reasonable argument to be made that a move to a foreign location, even one nominally more "native" than a zoo, is a definite hardship on an animal who has become habituated to a specific environment.

      Now, if the "zoo" in question is a 10x10 concrete room with bars, then maybe the quality of life in a larger and more natural (in the sense of less confinement and concrete) environment is worth a temporary disruption.

      But what about zoos that give primates large, outdoor spaces with natural accommodations like ponds, trees, shelter and primate experts who ensure their physical health and mental stimulation? A "natural" environment may be at best an equal trade and in some instances worse if it comes with a change in the fellow-species population (change in social status, loss of familiar animals or mates, etc).

      I'm not always sure that "natural" spaces really are as natural as their made out to be unless it means putting the animal back in its native environment -- sure, their animals but they can become as habituated to a captive lifestyle as any animal. My dog may love to run free outside, but he seems pretty well adapted to sleeping on the couch and probably wouldn't like being made to live outdoors 24x7 after living his life indoors.

  3. Re:The real problem... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Of course we can!

    Possibility the First: God exists, and gave Man dominion over the Earth and everything in it. Check, we can do what we like.

    Possibility the Second: God doesn't exist, we're just another animal. Therefore we can do what we like to the lesser animals, because, after all, we're just another Top-of-the-Food-Chain predator, eh?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Re:Monkey Business by itzly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Flesh eating bacteria were also doing fine before humans came along, so next time one starts eating on your leg, we'll just respect it as a person, and leave it there.

  5. Re:But an unborn baby is not a person. Riiiiiight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Monkey Business by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But the orangutan does not get to choose. There is no freedom involved here, just the decision about which group of humans gets to dicate its life.