Can a chimpanzee be a person?

[jokergirl]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-a-person.html

Short summary: Some people in Austria want to declare a chimpanzee belonging to a bankrupt zoo a person so that they can get legal guardian rights for him.
They fell through with it in court, so now they're going to human rights court about it.

What are your thoughts on this? What would the legal implications be should this actually not get laughed out of court?

Practically, a chimp does not share human DNA and is not able to learn like a human.
But then developmentally "challenged" or infertile people might technically not be called persons either, the chimp's advocates claim.

[mfumbesi]

One of their arguments is that a chimp share so much DNA with humans.

....He said humans and chimps had so much DNA in common, that the court should declare Matthew a person....

This is true, but then so does Orangutans, Gorillas, Baboons,etc, the point I am trying to make is where do you stop. What is the DNA threshold for legal "humanness" according to them. If say 10% variation in DNA is good enough, then the list becomes very long. There is a clear definition of what a human (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) should be wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29 is a good source for the "human" lineage.

[jokergirl]

You could say that, but chimpanzees are our closest neighbours DNA-wise. The Wiki page you linked shows Pan (the branch of chimpanzees, and also the family name Hiasl's caretakers suggested for him as a person) is the other branch of hominids.

H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis are closely related to each other and have been considered to be subspecies of H. sapiens, but analysis of mitochondrial DNA from Homo neanderthalensis fossils shows that H. neanderthalensis is more closely related to chimpanzees than H. sapiens is, thereby suggesting that H. sapiens is the more derived of the two.

That makes it even harder to draw the line. Neanderthals were clearly not humans, but they were intelligent and I am quite sure nobody would have been OK with people dragging off their children for medical experiments, like they did with Hiasl the chimpanzee.



PS: I agree though. I just like playing Devil's advocate.

[geonuc]

"This question is of paramount importance," said Mr Balluch, ...

Yep, I think human society across the globe should stop what they're doing and get this answered before moving on to lesser priorities.

[Ronald Brak]

Midgets only have half as much human DNA as I do.

[mfumbesi]

Oom Ron is courting the BAN.

[NEOWatcher]

I thought this sounded familiar... she just won't give up, will she?

[jokergirl]

No news so outlandish it hasn't made it to the BAUTF before.

[Ronald Brak]

In real life there is no line between human and nonhuman, intelligent and unintelligent, feeling and unfeeling. Any lines we draw exist for out own convenience, not in reality. Chimpanzees have many human characteristics and humans have many chimpanzee characteristics. I certainly agree that chimpanzees should have more legal protection than they do now. Certainly they should have more protection than zebras and lobsters.

[farmerjumperdon]

Define human. Define chimpanzee. If there is a difference, then the answer is definitely no, a chimpanzee is not a human - - ever. They are 2 different populations, and unless there was confusion regarding which of the two definitions a creature met; there should be no problem.

Like most controversial topics, this straightforward approach is being avoided because somebody has an agenda and is trying to make the definitions meet their purpose.

[Swift]

Define human. Define chimpanzee. If there is a difference, then the answer is definitely no, a chimpanzee is not a human - - ever.

No argument.

But the broader issue, which I suspect we will someday have to answer, is what right do beings with various levels of intelligence have. I suspect that one day we will have to deal with non-human intelligent sentient life, whether of our own creation (biological or non-biological) or ET. They will certainly be non-human, as farmerjumperdon says. But they may still have to be regarded as "a person".

I also suspect that intelligence/sentience is not a black and white issue, but one of degrees. I don't think chimps are equal to the level of humans, but they certainly have more than a bacteria or a clam, or even a mouse. Does that mean that should have relatively more rights than a clam, but less than a person?

I would answer that yes, that there should be some sort of sliding scale. And my impression is that they do - for example, look at the controls on animal experimentation that such government agencies as the NIH have - chimps get much more than mice.

[samkent]

Could we define things based on the ability to interbreed?

Could we have with neanderthals? Would that made them "human" in the eyes of scientists?

[Swift]

Could we define things based on the ability to interbreed?

Could we have with neanderthals? Would that made them "human" in the eyes of scientists?

That definition is often used to define species (the criteria is mating to produce fertile offspring). I have read debates about the question as regards neanderthals; I don't believe there is either consensus or definitive data.

[mike alexander]

Brought to mind Robert Heinlein's story Jerry Was a Man.

I admit that looking at a chimpanzee is disquieting. Part of it is probably the similarity of facial structure, but...

I remember visiting the zoo in Chicago many years ago. The gorilla was sitting in the middle of his cage, and when people walked by he made a deliberate effort to turn his back to them.

I have to say that I am profoundly disturbed by treatment of the great apes as just another animal. My personal opinion, of course.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Can a chimpanzee be a person?

If you'd ever met one you wouldn't need to ask.

[Swift]

Can a chimpanzee be a person?

If you'd ever met one you wouldn't need to ask.

I've met many people, but I'm still not sure.....

Oh, you mean met a chimp,.... oh well, no I haven't done that.

[mahesh]

jokergirl!

Washoe and Lucy.... come to mind.....thanks for reminding the wonders....

[Argos]

Humanity is a construct, to a great extent. Remember that not long ago the bulk of mankind was´t considered properly human [slavery comes to mind; large numebr of men not being Subjects of Rights]. Conversely, a construct could broaden the definition to include great primates [which share a great deal of man´s DNA, and possess a significant intelligence] into humanity.

[jokergirl]

I think some cats and dogs have more personality than some humans, but I wouldn't call them humans. Just persons.
Or possibly "people" not to confuse with the legal term "person" here.

[KaiYeves]

They should be able to help the poor chimp regardless of what he is. Poor little dude.

[dodecahedron]

Person != human
Folks oughta get into the habit of using "sophont" pretty soon should we deign to uplift any of our cousins, regardless of the number of their legs and where they can lick, or if Hoagland is right!!!!!!111111111111111oneeleven!!11oneexclaima tionpoint

[Gruesome]

Since the Human Rights Court has agreed to hear the case, doesn't that mean the chimp is a human?? I mean, it's not called the Chimpanzee Rights Court.

I've got a bad feeling about this...

[mugaliens]

The point I am trying to make is where do you stop. What is the DNA threshold for legal "humanness" according to them.

You stop when it ceases being human DNA and starts being chimpanzee DNA.



That being said, I don't believe it's current owners should have any rights to euthanize it if others are willing to begin caring for it and are capable of doing so.

[Halcyon Dayz]

You stop when it ceases being human DNA and starts being chimpanzee DNA.

There is only one kind of DNA. The ACGT kind.

[ravens_cry]

The question is not whether it is a human, AKA Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it is whether it is a person. And that is much more difficult question. In many cultures, including our own till recently, woman weren't considered persons under the law, despite that we are the same spiecies. <insert men/women joke here> I am sorry but a chimpanzee isn't a person to me. An intelligent and inquisitive creature, but not a person. Unfortunately, how to define this 'feeling', without excluding other, less abled members of our spiecies, through birth or misadventure, is beyond me at this point. I will continue to ponder this.

[Levitat]

So some of you people think humans should have the same rights as chimpanzees?

[mike alexander]

So some of you people think humans should have the same rights as chimpanzees?

Some of us may feel a bit uneasy treating our closest phylogenetic cousin as meat.

[novaderrik]

Some of us may feel a bit uneasy treating our closest phylogenetic cousin as meat.

and some humans hunt Chimps for their meat..

[Maksutov]

The related question is "Can a person be a chimpanzee?"

My answer is "yes".

I've (unfortunately) worked for a number of them. Some got Peter Principle promotions.

[mahesh]

At the end of the day, what is involved is LIFE, whichever form it happens to have. As human beings, we should respect it.

And a Human Rights court is involved in this case? That sounds to me, just about the only place left, to get a decent decision for our friends at the zoo!

i hope that the court comes up with a better decision than was obtained for that poor cow/bull, a few months ago at a temple in the UK, who was eventually taken away to become an ex-