"The question is: Are chimps things without interests, or persons with interests?" Balluch said.
Seems like a false dichotomy to me. You can have laws that give animals rights and protections without declaring them people.
i thought the same thing... it seems as though the chimp is a being with interests, given that it's intelligent enough to have interests, but it isn't a person.
j1mdot said:
Hail to the Chimp makes a very important point, a 100-150 fully grown chimp can very easily tear your limbs off. I've yet to meet a person that could eat someone's face... and still retain all of their rights, at least.
One could, however, shoot someone in the face and retain all of their rights.
What a lot of people don't seem to get is that there's a huge legal difference between "person" and "human." A corporation is a "person" inasmuch as it has its own unique concerns, responsibilities, and some measure of self-determination (in the form of a board of directors), even though nobody would ever confuse it for a human being.
Similarly, a chimp (and arguably many other animals) could be considered a "person" without redrawing the species lines.
Honestly, do you think that "chimps are not people LOL" is really news to the lawyers and judges involved?
TheCoolerKing
NEWSWIRE
Los Angeles, CA
OCT 05, 2007 11:42 AM