This seems more than a little wacky to me, well meaning but wacky. What do you think?

------------
Court to rule if chimp has human rights

Kate Connolly in Berlin
Sunday April 1, 2007
The Observer

He recognises himself in the mirror, plays hide-and-seek and breaks into fits of giggles when tickled. He is also our closest evolutionary cousin.

A group of world leading primatologists argue that this is proof enough that Hiasl, a 26-year-old chimpanzee, deserves to be treated like a human. In a test case in Austria, campaigners are seeking to ditch the 'species barrier' and have taken Hiasl's case to court. If Hiasl is granted human status - and the rights that go with it - it will signal a victory for other primate species and unleash a wave of similar cases.

Hiasl's story began in 1982 when, as a baby, he was taken from Sierra Leone and smuggled into Austria in a crate with seven other chimps destined for a vivisection laboratory east of Vienna. But customs officers seized the crate and Hiasl was sent to an animal sanctuary. Now the sanctuary faces bankruptcy and Hiasl could be sent to the Baxter vivisection laboratory after all. Seeking to save Hiasl, who likes painting, kissing visitors and watching wildlife programmes, an Austrian businessman has donated £3,400 towards his upkeep.

However, unless Hiasl has a legal guardian who can manage the money it will go to the receivers. As only humans have a right to legal guardians, his campaigners say it is necessary for Hiasl's survival to prove that he is one of us. Primatologists and experts - from the world's most famous primate campaigner, Jane Goodall, to Professor Volker Sommer, a renowned wild chimp expert at University College London - will give evidence in the case, which is due to come to court in Vienna within the next few months.

One of their central arguments will be that a chimpanzee's DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar to that of humans - closer than the relationship between donkeys and horses. They will cite recent findings that wild apes hunt with home-made spears and can fight battles and make peace. In New Zealand, apes - gorillas, orang utans, chimpanzees and bonobos - were granted special rights as 'non-human hominids' in 1999 to grant protection from maltreatment, slavery, torture, death and extinction.

Sommer, an evolutionary anthropologist, said: 'It's untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria - neither biological, nor mental, nor social.' Paula Stibbe, a British woman, has applied to be named Hiasl's legal guardian. She said: 'He is a colourful character with lots of energy. The least we can do for him is give him ... a future in society.' Barbara Bartl, the judge and an animal rights campaigner, has stalled proceedings until documents are provided proving Hiasl has, as his friends say, the status of an asylum-seeker, having been abducted illegally from Sierra Leone.

If Hiasl is granted human status, Martin Balluch, of the Association against Animal Factories, who has worked to bring the case, wants him to sue the vivisection laboratory. He said: 'We argue that he's a person and he's capable of owning something himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money. This means he can start a court case against Baxter, which at the very least should mean his old age pension is secure.'

Bullspit.

A human fetus (it can't be anything else but human, by definition) has no "human" rights, and a chimp does?

I think stupid judges don't have rights.

"What do you think"?

I'm with you Hunster.

'We argue that he's a person and he's capable of owning something himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money."

How can chimp manage his money?! I'm dissapointed that Goodall is involved in this. I'm just going to say it, maybe she's geezing...

It is a slippery slope. Why stop at chimps or recognizing yourself in the mirror. Dogs have feelings and maybe even cattle have feelings. We are all mammals aren't we. I could support making it illegal to use apes in laboratories or mistreating them but not granting them human rights.

I agree and note that mistreating any animal is already a crime punishable by jail time in most states. In fact, members of the Virginia chapter of PETA are being prosecuted for neglecting animals they seized and were under their care. Many died and the rest were found starving, parasite infested and very ill.

Guys, I think the author of this point meant well according to the topic we are discusing. But since you bring it up, why wouldn't we treat every animal with the same respect?

I could surely understand better if this had been posted on April 1.

we should treat and respect all animals the same. it's childish or crazy to just go out and Hurt or Torment one for the fun of it. that's not cool.

but they are still animals. they're not human. we are.
we're top of the chain. we still gotta eat.
so while i may may love and respect that rabbit or fish i'm still gonna bag it and eat it if i have to.

this court case is just ridiculous. couldn't the money spent on this case be better used on wild primates or better enclosures, or something?
wft?


wow.


dave b.

Dave B., welcome to the forums. Glad to have you.

This has to be an April Fools joke.
I hope.

Why don't just do what NZ did... that should be ok, no?

TKD

Sadly, I agree.

thanks.

April Fools joke. Has to be, or I would finally have rights! Let's see if I can fit this square peg in a round hole and sign for a banana. :biggrin:

You got me worried I had been fooled, but I checked and many sources are reporting it. Sadly, this is not an April fool's joke.

New Scientists

WorldNetDaily

Online Journal of Law and Popular Culture

I'm always the odd man out on these sorts of things.

The argument for Great Ape personhood has been going on for a couple decades now, and I think they're probably right.

I wouldn't eat a chimp, it'd feel too much like cannibalism, maybe its just me. Chimps are extremely close to us biologically, more so than they are to other apes, they can use advanced forms of communication to express their ideas and feeling, overall not too different from us at all.

I don't think this is advocating letting chimps get public educations and well paying jobs, just that they are close enough to us to deserve closer rights to what we have.

Call me a radical - but I think that the time, effort and $ should go to protecting and ensuring the rights of the millions of humans who are denied their very right to exist because of the lack of resolve and leadership of the people of the "have countries".
Humans first - then I'll be happy to work on other perceived inequities.

Yeah, uh last time I checked, Human and Chimpanzee are two different species, human rights only apply to humans.

I personally think cases like this are important. It makes many people self examine ourselves, if we can get past simplistic slogans.

There are two basic sides to this issue:

(1) Does the ape deserve to be cut up and experimented on while still alive?
(2) Many of the medicines, surgeries, and medical technologies we have today are from animal experimentation.

Does this happen? If so, who does it?



I'm sure it is.

However, considering the history of the animal rights movement (which isn't an old culture), I can't believe much of anything they say.

If animals are tortured in the course of "experimentation", I think that should require a permitting process which is well reviewed beforehand by appropriate authorities. The potential benefits should have to be significant and likely.

But I'm not going to jump on a bandwagon like this (human rights for animals) because of some vague accusations regarding animal experimentation. That can be regulated without going overboard.

Activists Want Chimp Declared a 'Person'
By WILLIAM J. KOLE, Associated Press Writer

If this were to happen would it set precedence or will laws need to be reworked governing some accounting practices now in place?

DDA-

We already have a thread on this here, might want to ask mods to move your post there and revive that one? (We have enough doubling up with all the Cryptomundo repetition.)

Apeman

Sorry

Yes.

Go here for more information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivisection

As a huge animal lover, I'm not sure what labeling a chimp or bigfoot "human" would really do. We treat each other horribly! Would labeling an animal by a different name change people's hearts and minds? Respecting life has to come from the soul...you can't "make" people do that.

DDA- I'm not sure I fully understand your question, nor am I expert in Austrian law, but I've been to Vienna and did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night and... No, my understanding of this case is that a ruling in favor of some sort of personhood for this chimp (or both of them) would do both: set an incredible precedent, and also force some changes in accounting practices related to the care of chimps, or would they be 'chimpeople?'

I was avoiding saying anything in is thread because (I get too emotional and) it looks like it will mostly fall on deaf ears, but I'm again a little dumfounded by the general attitude of the majority here. There seem to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions rather than thought out opinions (remember, humans are actually animals too). The version Gigantor posted is a little inflammatory (imagine that with journalism these days), but read the link DDA posted above, which contains a slightly better explanation of this case.

Of course this is a stretch, and of course it's a slippery slope, and of course there's an element of insincerity in primatologists claiming they're just looking out for these individuals when, as Sneakers rightly pointed out, this effort has been going on for decades and this could be the dream case many have been waiting for. But doesn't everyone see the validity of this case and this argument? It's not just a stunt. It's mostly driven by a legal pickle in Austria wherein these chimps might not be able to benefit from the above average legal protection they're otherwise granted in Austria.

I'd be MORE than happy to debate the difference between a human fetus and an adult chimp but that, my friend Hunster, will clearly lock up this thread on religious grounds within about two posts. (And where does any "stupid judge" come into this case so far?) You're of course right that experimentation needs to be regulated, and in most places it is, but clearly you're aware of the injustices that go on this world. If human society can't prevent kids from being enslaved and trafficked all around the globe for our own sexual and other perversions, how the heck is anyone going to prevent someone from doing whatever horrible things they want to do to these chimps if they are forced to be sold outside of where they are currently being protected? That's a big part of what this case is about. Imagine that you can't afford to take care of your kids anymore and you can either change some laws to give them to a guardian of your choosing, or you can let them loose to try to survive on their own where they'll likely end up locked up and abused in your neighbors basement. Easy choice right?

Jane Goodall is not "geezing." One of her oldest, more famous, and most oft repeated stories is about when people ask if, or suggest that, she likes chimps more than people- to which she unabashedly responds that she "likes some people more than some chimps, and some chimps more than some people." The point being that she hardly distinguishes between the species separation and that individual chimps are as unique as people are. This is an old view of hers, not a reflection of dementia or anything else. We should show a little more respect both to her and to the elderly.

Dave, this has nothing to do with needing to eat, and if you read the articles you'll see that a main issue here is indeed about $$. Though there is certainly some cost involved, I don't think anyone is spending tons of money on this case, and not money that could go to support these chimps because that is the root of the whole problem as I understand it- there is no mechanism for ensuring their future. My understanding is that, on paper, that is exactly what this case is legally about, though the implications are lot bigger. [As an aside, and it's taken me a long time to really understand and accept this, but the seemingly obvious argument that "wouldn't the money be better spent if..." is actually pretty hollow. People say it all the time about $10 million zoo exhibits, and it's certainly true that $10M spent to save the right Africa rainforest would benefit more chimps (or chose your species) than a glass, fiberglass and concrete construction project in the Bronx. But the problem is that the people who are willing to have a $10M exhibit with their name on it, visited by 5 million people a year, announced in the society pages and written about in Vanity Fair, are usually not willing to spend the same amount of money to buy a piece of forest they'll never see. Or equip rangers, or buy radios, or pay educators, etc. It's just not the same money, which is why it's OK to do both without evening having to consider the other merits of fancy zoo enclosures, or drawbacks of habitat protection.]

Rockinkt- If you think the meagre resources involved in this case can have any impact on the larger human rights issues that you've mentioned, please let me know because I've probably got enough money in my savings to cover the rest. Sarcasm aside, your point is well taken but you're mixing apples and oranges. The human and $$ resources of the wealthiest and "most developed" countries in the world can't even remedy basic problems of homelessness and starvation within their own borders; these issues are complicated and if you think Bigfoot skeptics are stubborn, think of the inertia, apathy, and complaceny of the human and political will involved in these issues!

***

You can label me, and a few others in this thread, however you want. Do I think chimps deserve something resembling "personhood?" Yes I do, for reasons I could write for hours about. And I'm perfectly happy to slide a whole lot further down Bob's very slippery slope and include a vast number of other groups of animals. And like Rockinkt I'd really like to see a few more actual persons fall under that umbrella too. There are probably also some people we could find a consensus on that have lost some of those inherent rights- but that's a different thread.

We all draw some relatively arbitrary line here somewhere, and even more arbitrary when we're talking about different issues: eating them, killing them, using them, controlling them, providing for them, etc. Most think the big line is between humans and other animals, perfectly reasonable and logical...if you happen to be in the select group. But many people have exceptions and agree you're morally allowed to kill certain people. Others draw a really squiggly line between "farm" mammals and "pet" mammals; for others in between mammals and other vertebrates; then there's a line between birds and mammals versus fish and reptiles; some will go all the way through vertebreates; and on an on we go until you get to the extremes. Many in this forum talk of respecting and treating all animals humanely or not torturing them, but leave an exclusion for hunting, or eating Purdue chickens and McDonald's hamburgers, while others say all those things are wrong but still wear leather or wool "by-products" and use animal-tested cosmetics. None of us are perfect, none of us fully live up to what we believe in this regard. Some try, some try harder than others, but it's pretty close to impossible in western society for anyone to really claim a high moral ground here. I'm certainly not trying to do that, but I try to do what I can, where I can, even when it's a big inconvenience.

So it's in that spirit that I'm perfectly willing to support the envelope being pushed as far as possible when it comes to making life better for the other animals that we're lucky enough to share this planet with, starting with our closest relatives. It seems to make perfect sense to me and I honestly don't see what we have to lose or to risk. A few medications, vaccines, and treatments- to start with? I'm happy to take my chances, and my family's chances, with science catching up to where it should be in the very, very few places this is applicable. Hamburgers, squirrel Mcnuggets, and sushi eventually? I assure you that I'll be just as fat and happy as I am now when those are all outlawed. So please spare me those diatribes... my feet are already splintered and soapy enough tonight!


Trying to be as respectful as possible-
Apeman

PS- HairyMan, you're right, but this case (on paper) is about more than the label, it's about the legal implications of the label and how it can be used in this case to legally protect these chimps. Check out DDA's link for a better explanation.

The only line to be drawn logically is the line between true consciousness and not. If you don’t understand the difference try to think about your life when you were 1 year old. At that point you could feel pain, but could not suffer, because suffering requires consciousness. You can’t remember any pain you had at 1 year old because your consciousness had not yet taken root. That is what it’s like for non-human animals.

We humans love to project our mental functions onto other animals, especially our ancestors like chimps. But as much as we’d like it to be so, they don’t have the level of consciousness that can lead to suffering (in the cognitive sense).

If a chimp kills another, should we then throw it in prison. Well the absurdity of that demonstrates that they are not human. They are different and should not be granted human rights nor should they be expected to act in human ways. I do think that they should be strongly protected, but it should be clearly recognized that we are protecting an animal and not a human.

I don't think that a chimp would suffer with words but it would probably suffer in a very cognitive way in my opinion as would a gorilla or an orangutan or bigfoot for that matter. I guess I generally believe they are more intelligent and cognitive than most people believe. I don't think that level of intelligence is necessarily restricted to great apes, either, but it is just a personal opinion.

Aside from the fact that I ultimately disagree with you, I'm happy to know that, by your logic, we can ultimately replace all the lab animals out there with human babies. That will make things a little more expensive but will really validate a lot more of the data. Don't get me wrong, I realize there are differences between levels of consciousness, and fully agree about projection and anthropomorphism, I just don't think that your idea of cognitive suffering (if it's even truly different) is a valid reason for drawing that line is most circumstances. It's easy to turn that into a utilitarian argument about using babies, mentally handicapped people, and other extreme cases which we all know are morally wrong (and without avoiding the "potential" argument that will stir the abortion debate). I'll save the rest of my thoughts for now because I need to think and learn a little more about this notion of congitive suffering because I really think it's not exclusively human. Can you point me to any worthy references?

Jim- I agree with you and think that that sort of protection is really all that most of the serious advocates are talking about. There needs to be some happy medium between nonhuman animals as property and something like full human rights, and though animal cruelty laws are a start, they are arguably not enough in many cases.

We all need to realize that these cases aren't driven solely by wackos, extremists, and PETA-card-carrying folks. There are a lot of really smart people (even if they're mostly lawyers ) driving the legal end of this debate. I think we can assume that we're not going to come to any startling revelations here in the BFF that haven't already been exhaustively considered in the 2-3 decades that lots of very intelligent people have been thinking this all through. It's been years since I've read their literature but we should all probably visit the Great Ape Project (and similar) websites before getting much more of a flame war going here- and sorry if I've contributed to that.

Apeman

I think people are misunderstanding what is really going on here they are not trying to give the apes the right to own homes, vote, manage money, etc. What they are trying to do is put fourth stricter laws conserning the apes. Lets face it, it is a fact that alot of animals are needsly being killed every day, mainly by poachers, and that is a fact and i believe there are labs that are mistreating animals around the world just because we don't see it doesn't mean it does not happen. True we will never stop poaching, but we can stop the labs and researchers that are liscenced by the gov. from mistreatment.

This is sad but true. Animals can't volunteer for research purposes. I've read cases where people have volunteered for research due to their terminal illness. This is a brave and kind deed. To think that people hurt dogs, makes me ill. Dogs wag their tails and have no idea what some researchers is going to do next. This is cruel ticks me off.

Has anyone seen the movie called Project X that follow the comments on this thread.

From descriptions, BF comes as close to human as any animal and but has no rights in our forests. People can cut roads through its territory, and shoot at it anytime.

Come now, you can’t equate my logic to replacing lab animals with human babies. Human babies are almost certain to become conscious in the near future. A little sensationalism on your part.

And nothing I said has anything to do with a utilitarian argument to abuse animals or mentally handicapped people. You must have made that up because I'm disturbing your comfy view of the world with new ideas. We humans generally have moral instincts not to do such things. A common trait of sociopaths is animal abuse. But the tricky part to understand is that we have that instinct as part of our human social structure, not because we know the animals are conscious and can suffer in the cognitive sense. Think of it as projecting the ‘golden rule’ onto other species.

As far as references to the difference between ‘pain and suffering’ the best cognitive philosopher on this subject is Daniel C. Dennett. He has written lots of books, but he addresses this question explicitly in Kinds of Minds

From that book:



So what he is saying if you read the whole book is that without language there is no thought, without thought there is no reflection, without reflection there can be no suffering. In other words, when a squirrel falls off a cliff, it can feel the pain of hitting the ground, but cannot reflect on what its life may have been if it had not had that accident, it can’t think about how its children will miss him and therefore really won’t suffer. Actually we humans are totally arrogant bastards thinking that other forms of life go through what we go through.

Another book I read that just touched on the subject and quoted Dennett was “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” which is a really interesting book about the sad state of food production today. The author actually purchased a calf as part of the book project and followed all the way over a couple of years to slaughter. As it went to slaughter it had no fear or suffering at all, because it was unaware of the situation, much as a zebra might be while being slaughtered by a lion.

I wrote this - and then deleted it - and then re-wrote it.
Equating hunting to torture and calling it inhumane like apeman does is insulting to those of us who know better.
I too am not trying to get into a flame war.
But I cannot let glib responses that are dishonest and self-serving and denigrate the hunters and family people who use and will continue to use modern medicine go unchallenged.

Sensationalism is the key word in animal rights activism. Actually - it is the key word in any "activism".

Cases like this draw a huge amount of money from people around the world.
Patrick Moore (co-founder and FORMER member of Greenpeace) explained the hows and whys of these types of cases to me.
The Hells Angels do the same thing in their "test cases" regarding helmet laws, etc.
If Apeman has the amount of $ in his savings account that is generated by this case and donated to animal rights groups around the world because of it - he is a very rich man.
The cynical former fraud investigator side of me looks at the headlines this type of nonsensical case generates in the west and I shake my head and wonder: "Is this case really about the legal arguments - or is it just trying to generate hype to raise public awareness and tons of money?"
I think it means a lot to the zealots - but the huge animal rights industry is is the biggest beneficiary.

I respect Jane Goodall for her scientific achievement in her chosen field. Other than that - she is just another person who is using her fame to push her own agenda and is therefore open to the same criticisms as any other political lobbyist.
Her agenda is to stop all hunting, fishing, "factory farming" (what a nebulous concept that is!), the use of animals for research, food, entertainment - I think you get the picture.

It seems to make perfect sense to me and I honestly don't see what we have to lose or to risk. A few medications, vaccines, and treatments- to start with? I'm happy to take my chances, and my family's chances, with science catching up to where it should be in the very, very few places this is applicable. -apeman

Glad you made the choice to endanger your own family's health and well being in the future - Apeman. You know full well that animal studies continue to be necessary for advancing human and animal health and have played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance. This includes lifesaving drugs and vaccines, new surgical procedures and improved diagnosis of disease.
You glibly talk the talk - but if push came to shove and there was a treatment for cancer (or any other painful wasting disease) that would save your loved one's life that was based on findings from experiments done on animals - I am pretty sure that you would chose to ease the pain and suffering and agony of your loved one.
At least - I hope you would.
Do you shun any medication that has come about in any way from the experiments of animals from the past? Let's forget medications - what about medical procedures?
Perhaps you would care to extend your big talk to ALL the medical benefits you enjoy NOW because of animal experimentation that occured in the past couple of hundred years? After all - to say that you will not take advantage of any future medical research involving animals after the exact same type of research in the past has benefited you and yours immeasurably already - is the height of all hypocrisy - IMHO.

What about any scientific advance that has come about because of animal research?
I suppose you took only trains and boats to and from Africa? Trying not to be sarcastic here but wouldn't altitude experiments on chimps obviously preclude such a morally upright and dedicated person like yourself from flying in a modern jet aircraft? So - did you fly in a jet? Are you ever going to fly in a jet?
Jane Goodall does.
Those who spout moral superiority while making exceptions for themselves deserve no respect - IMHO.

It's easy to sit high on the mountain and criticize those exact same practices that got you there.


Trying to be as respectful as possible-
rockinkt

A hallmark of humanity is our ability to care about other species. It is understandably difficult for people to reconcile this empathy with support of animal studies for medical advances that cure disease and improve the quality of life.

Animal extremists prey on this discomfort and count on society's general lack of scientific insight to advance their agenda. These extremists knowingly misrepresent the ability of computers and emerging scientific techniques to serve as viable substitutes for animal studies.

Government regulations around the world require that new drugs, vaccines and surgical implants first be tested in animals for potential toxic reactions. Beyond these formal legal requirements, research into the root causes of disease at the genetic level and how diseases become resistant to current treatments cannot be simulated by computer programs or duplicated in test tubes... Even as divergent as the views of animal activists and researchers may seem to be, there is agreement on one key issue: We all look forward to a day when mankind's ingenuity provides a way to completely eliminate the need for animal studies.

Dr. George Poste - veterinarian and director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University.

I'm sorry to have upset you two so much. I really am. I'm too busy to write much at this moment but think you both need to go back and really read all that I wrote, because 80% of my rebuttal to what you've just written is in my previous posts.

Enjoy your Sundays (and please don't worry about upseting or insulting me here, I wouldn't dish it out if I couldn't take it). I respect you both and think- as usual- that we're standing on much more common ground than it may seem.

Apeman

PS/Afterthought: Didn't mean to assume/ascribe any undue feelings and hope nothing was condescending in the previous post?

Apeman - I respect your obvious intelligence and dedication to your chosen field. Your posts have certainly educated me about many things.
The fact that we may have strong disagreements about certain things does not make you my enemy. When I get together with good friends - table pounding and loud voices sometimes punctuate the conversation. It would be a pretty dull world if friends couldn't voice their honest opinions about things that they take very seriously.
I will certainly think no less of you for being honest and standing firm in your knowledge and beliefs.
I came out swinging - I expect to take a few blows...

Apeman and Rockinkt. I agree with Rock's statement There is sort of a sub-group of science / rationalism enthusiasts here, ourselves included, as well as many others. It's a lot more fun to have a strong debate with people having similar interests and background because you can get to the more esoteric and interesting points. The subject that fascinates me the most is consciousness, or how the brain/mind works, so I have no agenda other than satisfying my curiosity. That, plus the second most interesting subject - evolution - makes Bigfoot an interesting subject.

Hmmm... just my two-cents, but my first worry when reading this article was that they'd be giving the chimp power over it's own oney. I'm not saying it can't manage money (I don't think it can, but I'm no expert on chimps), but if it could, wouldn't that just be subjecting it to the pressures and stress of normal human society? Would we really want to take away it's animal innocence and care-free-edness?

"Here" didn't state that apes are cut up and experimented on while still alive.

In fact, it stated this:



Again, does this happen? If so, who does it?

I doubt that.

Thread title: "Would Bigfoot become a person?"

Person:



A human fetus is human.

A chimp, at any age, is not.

Period.

With great reluctance I wander back into this thread, but I thought I owed at least three of you some further explanation. I'm NOT doing this in order to have the last word- not my style- but I probably won't dare wade back into this thread. Sorry it's taken me over a week but I've been running back and forth across the country...

I want to do this very briefly so as not to reignite this thread (PS- failed at that, sorry)

Hunster- Sorry, I misinterpreted where you were going in your earlier post and am more than happy not to go there. You are indeed correct that a chimpanzee is, by definition, not human.

***

Rock- I tried my best in my long post to make clear that I don't think I'm morally any better than most and certainly wasn't spouting any moral superiority. I was really just trying to explain my personal feelings, probably a foolish act here.

There is really no way either of us can know how much money is or isn't generated by this case so that's not worth arguing over. I get your point on this and hope you understand mine.

I think you misunderstood my point about the future of lab animal research as it concerns human medicine. This is really a huge discussion, and another one I really don't care to seriously debate here in the BFF (I know, I know, I chose to get on the ride). Full disclosure: I also don't yet have any (human) children and won't pretend to fully comprehend the "throw yourself in front of a train" altruism that I know that entails. All I was really trying to say, based on what I learned many years ago and have only peripherally tried to follow since, is that a lot (some would say all) of animal testing is unnecessary and/or could be replaced with other techniques causing virtually no impact on human medicine. Again, I'm sure we could also debate that endlessly, but let's not. I'm not saying that I'm 'right' and don't want to hear anything contrary to my "belief" system, I acknowledge that there is another side of the argument, I respect it, I'm familiar with it, but it's not going to change anything for me. I'm not so stupid as to reject all that's been historically done medically at the expense of animals in principal, I'm mostly suggesting that in this day and age a lot more could and should be done. I wasn't tryng to take any moral high ground or say that I would personally reject these things in the future, just that I'm willing to sacrifice (or more likely delay) a few health benefits if it means I can help releive a lot of animal suffering. And without being faced with the situation I cannot say what I would actually do, but faced with a choice between prolonging my own or one of my family member's lives at the expense of a chimpanzee (think organ transplanation), I will always hold that it is morally wrong to sacrifice one chimpanzee (or other great ape) for one person. Yeah, I'd probably do it if it meant my wife's life, but I would also always feel pretty guilty about it. The only other thing I'd add -in hopes of waylaying any prejudices of anyone else reading- is that I'm not (just ) some tree-hugging, bunny loving, mink-freeing, lab vandalizing, animal rights extremist. I'm professionally and socially surrounded by other scientists that make their lifelihoods using animals in research, I've been involved with IACUCs, I've worked in labs with animals, and I've killed more animals than I care to think about. So I'm not speaking from as far 'left' as it might otherwise seem. (Sorry that was more of a ramble than I intended to write.)

***

FNW'er

I think I can actually and validly make the analogy I made, but I do understand your viewpoint regarding potential. I fundamentally disagree with it because of where it leads (what is the potential of a single egg cell...or perhaps any pluripotent cell...and eventually any single cell once we get the machinery all figured out?). You are free to accuse me of sensationalism, but it was the easiest way of making my point that your argument says the line is between conciousness and non-consciousness, which, by your own example eliminates human babies from the obvious side of the line, right? And, by my understanding- with the admission that it's been years since my undergrad philosophy classes- this is exactly the argument (or slippery slope) that can be used in the utilitarian view of doing the most good for the most people. To be clear, what I mean is a utilitarian would use YOUR argument that a human infant has no conscienceness to say that it is therefore OK to use such a being in order to benefit conscience beings. I think Singer was the one who tied this all together with animal rights arguments and I apologize for not being able to better articulate it. But I guess the point is that if the human infant is NOT going to suffer any more than a chimp would (or the cow led to slaughter), why not use it the same way? (A: You shouldn't actually use either; both are morally wrong; it's not simply about consciousness, sentience or anything else.)

Anyway, these are areas that people spend years writing dissertations about, and endlessly debating in ivy towers, etc. because there are no simple answers. The mental excercise is always fun and sometimes enlightening but I don't think any of us here are going to change any of each other's minds, which is fine. I do need to read up on and think more about this 'cognitive suffering' because I really don't believe it's exclusively human, but that's another story...

***

I think the common ground is that we all believe animals (including human ones) shouldn't be uneccesarily harmed, we just disagree on what may or may not be 'necessary.' And we appear to run the gamet on the worthiness of this legal case, but I think that's partly to do with many failing to understand what it is really about. And I guess that part answers DDA's question about how human a sasquatch might be perceived to be: human to some, "animal" to others, regardless of how much or how little we really know about it. Of course all bets are off if it can read, write, and speak any human language, design and make tools, anticipate it's future, walk bipedally, have opposable thumbs, suffer cognitive pain...what are the rest of obligate and aggregate criteria that make us so "exclusively" human [sarc].

Back to squatching...

Apeman

edited for typos

Thanks for the reply Apeman. Just a quick reply to say that I understand where you're coming from. But learning more about cognitive science doesn't at all interfere with morality. It just gives more understanding of what is really involved. It's a fun subject, check out Daniel Dennett.

-FNW'er