Personhood for Elephants? But not for the Unborn.

So an elephant is a person but not an unborn human?

Wesley Smith writes: 

 Animal rights must always be distinguished from animal welfare. The former is an ideology that creates moral equality between us and fauna. In this view, human beings have no more right to own animals than we do people.

Animal welfare arises out of human exceptionalism. It accepts the unique value of human beings and the moral propriety of owning animals. But it also comprehends our duty to treat animals humanely, the definition of which will depend on the capacities and characteristics of each animal, and which is always subject to improvement and change.

The Greatest Threat

The greatest immediate threat the animal-rights movement poses to society is known as “animal standing,” that is, allowing animals to go to court to bring lawsuits. Of course, the animal litigants would be oblivious. Animal standing is designed to unleash the very well-funded animal-rights legal community to sue and sue and sue.

Think cattle herds suing ranchers or lab animals suing universities — not to improve care but to liberate from all human use. It could bring many activities that involve the instrumental use of animals to a halt.

The Nonhuman Rights Project is leading this charge. Currently, it is seeking a writ of habeas corpus to release an elephant kept at the Bronx Zoo. The argument isn’t based on the pachyderm’s welfare but rather its supposed “personhood.”

A Circular Argument

The case was argued in an appeals court recently. Note the circular argument. From the Times Union story:

Appellate Justice Peter Moulton told Wise his argument “doesn’t answer the question of why a paradigm that was created for one species could possibly apply to another one.” Moulton noted the word “person” appears in the statute for a habeas corpus writ, a legal demand for a prisoner to be produced so a court can determine if imprisonment is lawful.

[Stephen] Wise said the issue is not whether Happy is a person but if she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. If so, he said, she is automatically a person, legally speaking.

The story reports that the judges were skeptical. Let us hope so.

But don’t say, “It can never happen here.” In a previous unsuccessful lawsuit involving chimps, a judge in New York’s highest court indicated he would declare chimpanzees to be legal persons and grant them habeas-corpus relief in their own name.

The truth is we are exactly one judge short of this kind of lunacy and there are plenty of looney judges out there. 

Comments

  1. I suspect that there may be a certain equivalence between the moral sensibility of "animal rights" advocates and the animals they advocate for.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment