The European Court of Human Rights might hear a case in which they will be asked to legally declare a chimpanzee to be a person.
A British animal rights activist wants to become the legal guardian of Matthew, a 26 year-old chimp, so that she can take care of him if the bankrupt animal sanctuary in Vienna, Austria, that is his home, is closed.
However, under Austrian law, only a human being can have a guardian. Austria's supreme court has upheld that law in this case.
But that's not stopping the Association Against Animal Factories, who filed the appeal in the European court on behalf of the chimp.
Why is this worth noting? I'll tell you.
A British animal rights activist wants to become the legal guardian of Matthew, a 26 year-old chimp, so that she can take care of him if the bankrupt animal sanctuary in Vienna, Austria, that is his home, is closed.
However, under Austrian law, only a human being can have a guardian. Austria's supreme court has upheld that law in this case.
But that's not stopping the Association Against Animal Factories, who filed the appeal in the European court on behalf of the chimp.
Why is this worth noting? I'll tell you.
In a recent post, I wrote about my objections to embryonic stem cell research, on the grounds that such research destroys human life. These are the same grounds on which I base my objections to abortion - I believe that upon the meeting of a sperm and egg, a human life is conceived, and cannot be aborted. However, not everyone agrees.
One roadblock to outlawing abortion is that many pro-choice activists argue that a fetus is not a human. In my opinion, a fetus conceived by two people cannot be anything else - it won't be anything else, regardless of how similar a human embryo might look to an embryo of another species. It is genetically programmed to develop into a human. But many refuse to label a fetus a human, so that it is easier to permit abortion.
My point is this: what sort of society have we become when we refuse to call our most vulnerable members human beings, whereas it is conceivable to fight for a chimpanzee to be given this distinction?
I want to cry.
One roadblock to outlawing abortion is that many pro-choice activists argue that a fetus is not a human. In my opinion, a fetus conceived by two people cannot be anything else - it won't be anything else, regardless of how similar a human embryo might look to an embryo of another species. It is genetically programmed to develop into a human. But many refuse to label a fetus a human, so that it is easier to permit abortion.
My point is this: what sort of society have we become when we refuse to call our most vulnerable members human beings, whereas it is conceivable to fight for a chimpanzee to be given this distinction?
I want to cry.
I'll be keeping an eye on this case to see what develops. Hopefully, the European Court of Human Rights will maintain the same position as the Austrian supreme court. Only time will tell.
8 comments:
While I don't share your reasoning about abortion and human value, I also agree this case is over the top. How can we classify a "Pan troglodyte" (chimpanzee, belonging to the ape species), as a Homo Sapien? SImply put, we are not the same species and do not share the same genetic makeup. How can you classify an animal as the same species if its genes clearly show otherwise, even if it does look slightly similar?
In my opinion, this case is like trying to classify a turtle as a tortoise. While the two may share a lineage going back thousands of years, their paths branched and they are too genetically dissimilar and have too many unique characteristics to have the same narrow classification. This idea works even if you don't believe in macro evolution; the animals were created as two separate beings and should remain so.
Plus, if this does pass, it creates a precedent for allowing other cases of animal cross-over. And on a side note, rather than keeping the animal sheltered in a human home, wouldn't it have been better to train or educate the animal for a transfer back into its native habitat, or even find another sanctuary for it?
Or if she insisted on keeping the chimp in a human environment, wasn't there another legal recourse than trying to classify the chimp as human? I hope this action fails.
"I believe that upon the meeting of a sperm and egg, a human life is conceived, and cannot be aborted." Too bad that many fertilized eggs are aborted de facto anyway in the body bc they cant make it all the way to the womb.
and just a thought: it doesn't make sense to value human life while not valuing other life, too. for example, you believe that upon the egg and sperm meeting then its something that is alive and cannot be aborted. Well, if you eat scrambled eggs with that logic, thats just like "yum yum yum defenseless baby chickens." (basically, i dont think that you can say "life" begins that early bc there's a lot of other factors and also, i find the whole abortion argument rather irrelevant to a chimpanzee being labeled as a human).
and to Fredeaux, we share about 98% of our genetic makeup with chimpanzees. Also, there are many chimpanzees that are smarter and are more human (and humane) than many "people" that I know. (hint: there's this guy and they call him Dubya, among others).
But anyway, the whole "Chimps are People, too" thing is silly. Chimps are chimps. People are people (the whole "not the same species thing"). A much better solution would be just to let trained professionals take care of the chimp but not declare the chimp a person (this is why there are judges that can decide on this stuff without wasting everyone's time) or to send the chimp to another, better animal sanctuary. This happens a lot with animals from zoos being transfered and I'm certain that it happens with animals in this sort of situation, too. Silly impractical activist.
J-Mad:
Ummm...the abortion argument has everything to do with what I was talking about. I'm glad to see that everyone agrees with me on the point that the chimp ought not be called a human. However, my post was about my disgust with a culture in which it is conceivable to call a chimpanzee a human, while a human fetus is for some reason not a human. So you see, in the comparison I'm making, abortion has everything to do with the discussion.
A fertilized human egg that does not get implanted in the womb and subsequently dies does not come to term for any number of natural reasons. I understand this. But to say using tools to shred the embryo is okay because not all fertilized eggs survive anyway is ridiculous. On that note, check out a video called "The Silent Scream," which shows a fetus in the womb trying desparately to avoid the instruments used during its abortion. It's kind of not the same thing as an egg that doesn't make it to the womb for any biological reason.
Furthermore, a fertilized human zygote is a HUMAN zygote. For one thing, chicken eggs we eat aren't fertilized. That's why they don't have chicks in them. Moreover, I don't think anyone would say a chicken's life is as important as the life of a human being. (On second thought, I can think of people who would say that. My point is that's silly.)
I don't say on the simple grounds that a human embryo is alive that it should be protected; it's because it's a HUMAN embryo that it should be protected. DISCLAIMER: I'm not at all saying I don't think animals should be protected from abuse.
Again, I wrote my post from my point of view, which was disgust for a society that refuses to call human beings what they are, while it's somehow an option to consider calling a chimp a human. This isn't supposed to start some debate about abortion. I was explaining my thoughts about a given situation from a pro-life standpoint.
Quick question, J-Mad:
If it's not right to value human life over other forms of life, is it moral to develop medicines that fight disease? Or should viruses and bacteria be given every chance to live?
Also, I know we've been out of touch for some time, but have you become vegan? If yes, your argument against eating eggs makes sense to an extnent. But if that is the case, why would you value plant life over animal life? It's all life, after all. But if you're not a vegan, than what you said doesn't make sense on any level, unless, of course, you simply don't value human life.
Quick response to quick question: viruses do not count as being alive or dead. and if an actual life (plant and animal life, what usually is considered a sentient being) is already alive and being attacked by something, we should put up a good defense.
To J-Mad: Yes, I realize that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps, but we also share 99% percent of the same genes with mice, so that doesn't really help your argument. Because of evolution, changes in just one gene can make a big difference.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/
And do you honestly think that some chimps are smarter than humans? Within the mammal classification, yes they are incredibly smart, but I don't think you can compare humans and chimps on a level of intelligence - you're comparing two completely different standards of intelligence. Chimps: vocabulary, memory, tool usage, etc.
Humans: judgement, critical thinking, unconditional love, etc.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/c
oolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/
Sorry, the url was incomplete.
to anonoymous: i didnt say that chimps are smarter than all people, just some (aka el presidente y su administration y otros). Also, there are definitely animals that exhibit ocabulary, memory, tool usage, in addition to judgement, critical thinking, unconditional love, etc.
Post a Comment