Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: Chimps have legal right?

  1. #1

    Default Chimps have legal right?

    There is a case in New York that the judge has granted Chimpanzees a "rite of halloos corpus. (if my spell check is correct).

    I am still undecided if I agree with this.

    My first reaction is based on Locke's Philosophy, and that they are not capable of creating social covenant's with or as humans. Therefore they are not entitled to "human rights"

    So I have two questions.

    What does this mean legally?
    Do you agree with this ruling?

    Egor

  2. #2

    Default

    Legal rights to vote? Chimps can vote for chimps, I don't see why not.

  3. #3

    Default

    The ruling said that the chimps may be intelligent enough to be "legal persons" meaning they would have a right not to be treated inhumanely.

    It's important to note that the argument hasn't happened yet. What the court did was rule that each side has the right to argue the case rather than throw the whole thing out immediately. the judge may rule that the chimp has no rights, he just wants to hear both sides argue about it first.

    Also it's "habeus corpus." That's Latin for "have the body" because it originally started as a way for people unjustly imprisoned for murder to petition to be freed if the state couldn't produce evidence of the murder happening at all (i.e. a dead body).
    Last edited by ArchieRoni; 22-Apr-2015 at 23:58.

  4. #4

    Default

    It should also be noted that the judge revised the ruling to pull the "habeous corpus" out of it the next day since they were trying to say that meant the ruling said they were humans. The judge never intended to say they were human, or had the same rights as humans. Only that the preliminary arguments that they were sentient enough to require humane treatment had enough merit to warrant requiring both parties to come and present their formal full case.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by egor View Post
    There is a case in New York that the judge has granted Chimpanzees a "rite of halloos corpus. (if my spell check is correct).

    I am still undecided if I agree with this.

    My first reaction is based on Locke's Philosophy, and that they are not capable of creating social covenant's with or as humans. Therefore they are not entitled to "human rights"

    So I have two questions.

    What does this mean legally?
    Do you agree with this ruling?

    Egor

    Planet of the Apes....

    The chimps might also decide that we don't have "chimp rights", similarly with dolphins.




    ****** Satire warning ******

    Unilaterally granting rights to chimps? Not sure that's a good idea. Emancipation proclamation.... next thing you know they're running wild on the south side of Chicago selling drugs and shooting each other.

    <in best Larry the Cable Guy voice - "I'm sorry Lord, that was a terrible thing to say, but somebody had to say it">

    ******end of satire warning******

    More seriously, I see it as a waste of time and money. Except for the lawyers, who get paid regardless. Humane treatment for any creature with pain sensors should be a no brainer. It shouldn't require judges and lawyers, just a sense of the kharma involved.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by ArchieRoni View Post
    The ruling said that the chimps may be intelligent enough to be "legal persons" meaning they would have a right not to be treated inhumanely.

    It's important to note that the argument hasn't happened yet. What the court did was rule that each side has the right to argue the case rather than throw the whole thing out immediately. the judge may rule that the chimp has no rights, he just wants to hear both sides argue about it first.
    IS this going to set a precedent that will open the flood Gates for "Animal Rights" cases?

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post

    More seriously, I see it as a waste of time and money. Except for the lawyers, who get paid regardless. Humane treatment for any creature with pain sensors should be a no brainer. It shouldn't require judges and lawyers, just a sense of the kharma involved.
    This would come back to the thread I started several months ago "What is Humane Treatment"?

    Man does not even treat man Humanely.
    Last edited by egor; 23-Apr-2015 at 02:52.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by egor View Post
    IS this going to set a president precedent that will open the flood Gates for "Animal Rights" cases?
    That would be my concern.

    P.S. Not being mean or critical with the strikethrough and correction. I really hate when my machines try to second-guess my word choice. I turn off those options whenever possible. Wild guess says you're using a phone or a tablet.

  8. #8

    Default

    There's a very small risk that this completely changes animal rights. There's a larger risk it changes Chimpanzee rights and makes it very hard to use them in experiments or tests without very careful treatment.

    Which is maybe a good thing? I don't really have a strong opinion about what the law should say here. I think it's morally wrong to abuse an animal, but there's also a lot of really beneficial research that results from carefully controlled animal testing on animals that are bred and raised only for that purpose.

  9. #9

    Default

    In the last 20 years or so though we have come up with new technologies that have made animal testing basically obsolete.

    It's even been proven time ad time again that using animals go medical testing hinders progress rather than helps because things tend to change DRASTICALLY once whatever drug or treatment hits human trials with the exception of a few tests here and there.

    The problem is that most testing isn't for the betterment of anything carving huge chunks of flesh off of an unanesthitized animal just to test skin care products, isolating monkeys from birth and torturing them just to see what happens to their psyche, burning pigs with flamethrowers to test a burn cream are the tests that are cruel, useless and need to be stopped.

    It's 2015, we can do better

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm also not going to deny that the helmet test from the 80's saved a lot of lives or that because of animal testing we made great advancements in science and medicine.

    But things have changed and we have better technology now, we have access to things that we didn't even 20 years ago that can an should replace the old model of animal testing.

    A few contries have even banned animal testing in all forms and they haven't slid back into the stone age, they're doing quite well and still making advancements so it can be done and IMO it's about time we retire the outdated and barbaric practice.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    The chimps might also decide that we don't have "chimp rights"
    i've long made the case that most humans don't qualify as human.

    on the animal testing side of things, whatever it is and however it's first tested, the final guinea-pigs are humans.
    or ?

Similar Threads

  1. Should it be legal...
    By lloydrughing in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 28-Jul-2011, 05:39
  2. Of legal age?
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13-Mar-2010, 09:39
  3. Pot's legal!
    By Chillhouse in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 21-Oct-2009, 06:11

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.