7 ms·

(serious question) Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? H

(serious question) Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? How do you rationalize it?

o_____________o 11y ago
I don't understand the leap here, but it would depend on how far the fetus was in development. A vastly different debate begins there.
umanwizard 11y ago
Chimpanzees are sentient. Unborn humans are not.
- jonah 11y ago
  Unborn humans are indeed able to experience sensations.
- sigzero 11y ago
  Science doesn't agree with you there.
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    Citation needed?
  - solipsism 11y ago
    My personal diet consists of only individual animals who claim science backs them up without actually having the slightest idea.
jonah 11y ago
It's cognitive dissonance.
- icebraining 11y ago
  That doesn't even answer the question.
MisterBastahrd 11y ago
I believe anyone should be able to get any medical procedure they need in order to maximize their health and happiness. The needs of a fetus don't outweigh the needs or rights of the mother. A fetus is not a person.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  You say: A fetus is not a person. And so I asked Google "Is a fetus a person?" The top result[0], from what appears to be a pro-choice activist site, is an article purporting to take on the argument that a fetus is a person. After reading the article, do you think it represents a mindset which is willing to reconsider its views in light of empirical evidence or any scientific study? [0]: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusp...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Personhood is not (except in the sense of "what entities currently have the legal status of 'person'?") a fact question, and therefore "empirical evidence or scientific study" can't even in principal say much about it.
    - Falling3 11y ago
      Of course it can. Personhood is a philosophical concept in addition to a legal one. Empirically verifiable criteria can be and are set for what constitutes a person.
    - notdonspaulding 11y ago
      So if science (the study of empirical evidence) is abdicating its responsibility to define who does and doesn't count as a person, to which branch of human thought should we submit the question? Philosophy? Religion? Psychology? What do each of them say in regards to the distinct nature of a person? HN makes for a pretty science-and-empirical-evidence-friendly crowd. I'm pretty sure each discipline (and probably more) has some idea what constitutes a person. My original question was meant to suss out where different people derived their definition of personhood from, and see if those conclusions had been arrived at by following facts or some other rational line of thought.
dsego 11y ago
Unborn humans are not self-conscious beings with a desire to live.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  How can you tell that the chimpanzee has a desire to live?
  - dsego 11y ago
    Are you for real?
    - notdonspaulding 11y ago
      Yes, sorry if that seemed like a troll-ish question, but it wasn't. You made a claim, and while I could assume I understand your reasoning, I'd rather know what you think, not what I think you think.
      - Crito 11y ago
        Throw the chimp in a pool. If the chimp swims out, it seems to have a (at least instinctual) desire to not drown. Put it into a more complex situation where the danger would only be recognizable through reasoning, see if it still tries to live. Honestly I would be very surprised if infant humans passed this, let alone unborn babies. I doubt a non-instinctual desire to remain alive can exist before that entity has the ability to recognize death as a concept and possibility. From what I have seen of babies, they just aren't that smart. I mean come on, they have to learn that they have hands, how could they have a conscious desire to preserve their own life before they are even aware of their full body?
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        Drowning hurts. Invalid test. Can you name something that's not a thought experiment where a chimp has shown that higher level of reasoning? Where they show a preference specifically about their own life/death. Edit: For example, an especially good test for a human would be a button that gives a mild zap when you press it, but if it goes unpressed then you die in your sleep from carbon monoxide poisoning. That shows actual preference for life, and not just running away from a negative stimulus.
anarchy8 11y ago
Because they are not unborn humans, they are undeveloped fetuses. Let's try not to bring political discussion to HN News. This isn't reddit.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  Judges setting legal precedent is an inherently political issue. The article is political in nature. I'm asking HNers to explain a relevant philosophical belief they hold. It seems squarely on-topic. This isn't reddit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bennettfeely 11y ago
  Making the claim that fetuses are somehow not human beings is an example of a purely political statement.
DSMan195276 11y ago
The entire argument is fairly arbitrary, so honestly it's not very hard to rationalize yourself into believing either side.
trhway 11y ago
>Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? How do you rationalize it? sentience level. Chimpanzee has higher sentience than a 4-weeks old fetus which has sentience level of a fish. I'm all for granting protections and rights (and responsibilities coming with it) according to sentience level independently of species. This in particular would equate an adult chimpanzee and 3-4 year toddler and senile 95 years old with advanced Alzheimer.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  I can hunt and eat a deer, which has roughly the sentience level than my 6-month old baby. Are you saying we should confer more rights on the deer, or less on my child?
  - trhway 11y ago
    i said it clearly - we should confer equal rights on both independently of species, including the specific right of not being killed. To "zigzero" below: your desire to kill a highly sentient living being just to satisfy your urge for some peculiar taste you like is ridiculous. Mommy, i want a candy, a-aaa-a! Time to grow up.
    - sigzero 11y ago
      Really? So now I cannot hunt deer for food? Please. That argument is ridiculous.
      - Zirro 11y ago
        Unless you live in a society where hunting for food is essential to ensure your own survival, I believe a lot of people are prepared to disagree with you.
        notdonspaulding 11y ago
        I've heard this argument before, but I don't quite understand the logic. I really struggle to come up with any other ethic I hold where it doesn't break down: - Unless you live in a society where raping young boys is essential to your survival, it's wrong. - The racism of the past was OK, but as a society we've moved past the need for it, so now it's morally wrong. What's an example of another moral or ethic that you would say follows this pattern of being malleable across space and time? Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? The granting of habeas corpus to chimpanzees in this case is a method of allowing a legal argument as to their status to be heard and decided; it isn't a grant of personhood so much as a granting someone the right to make an argument on their behalf that they are entitled to such a grant. The status of fetuses and the limits on the power of states to grant them rights that would interfere with a woman's right to choose vis-à-vis abortion has been litigated fairly exhaustively to the highest courts.

(serious question) Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? How do you rationalize it?

o_____________o 11y ago

I don't understand the leap here, but it would depend on how far the fetus was in development. A vastly different debate begins there.

umanwizard 11y ago

Chimpanzees are sentient. Unborn humans are not.

jonah 11y ago
Unborn humans are indeed able to experience sensations.
sigzero 11y ago
Science doesn't agree with you there.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  Citation needed?
- solipsism 11y ago
  My personal diet consists of only individual animals who claim science backs them up without actually having the slightest idea.

jonah 11y ago

It's cognitive dissonance.

icebraining 11y ago
That doesn't even answer the question.

MisterBastahrd 11y ago

I believe anyone should be able to get any medical procedure they need in order to maximize their health and happiness. The needs of a fetus don't outweigh the needs or rights of the mother. A fetus is not a person.

notdonspaulding 11y ago
You say: A fetus is not a person. And so I asked Google "Is a fetus a person?" The top result[0], from what appears to be a pro-choice activist site, is an article purporting to take on the argument that a fetus is a person. After reading the article, do you think it represents a mindset which is willing to reconsider its views in light of empirical evidence or any scientific study? [0]: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusp...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Personhood is not (except in the sense of "what entities currently have the legal status of 'person'?") a fact question, and therefore "empirical evidence or scientific study" can't even in principal say much about it.
  - Falling3 11y ago
    Of course it can. Personhood is a philosophical concept in addition to a legal one. Empirically verifiable criteria can be and are set for what constitutes a person.
  - notdonspaulding 11y ago
    So if science (the study of empirical evidence) is abdicating its responsibility to define who does and doesn't count as a person, to which branch of human thought should we submit the question? Philosophy? Religion? Psychology? What do each of them say in regards to the distinct nature of a person? HN makes for a pretty science-and-empirical-evidence-friendly crowd. I'm pretty sure each discipline (and probably more) has some idea what constitutes a person. My original question was meant to suss out where different people derived their definition of personhood from, and see if those conclusions had been arrived at by following facts or some other rational line of thought.

dsego 11y ago

Unborn humans are not self-conscious beings with a desire to live.

notdonspaulding 11y ago
How can you tell that the chimpanzee has a desire to live?
- dsego 11y ago
  Are you for real?
  - notdonspaulding 11y ago
    Yes, sorry if that seemed like a troll-ish question, but it wasn't. You made a claim, and while I could assume I understand your reasoning, I'd rather know what you think, not what I think you think.
    - Crito 11y ago
      Throw the chimp in a pool. If the chimp swims out, it seems to have a (at least instinctual) desire to not drown. Put it into a more complex situation where the danger would only be recognizable through reasoning, see if it still tries to live. Honestly I would be very surprised if infant humans passed this, let alone unborn babies. I doubt a non-instinctual desire to remain alive can exist before that entity has the ability to recognize death as a concept and possibility. From what I have seen of babies, they just aren't that smart. I mean come on, they have to learn that they have hands, how could they have a conscious desire to preserve their own life before they are even aware of their full body?
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        Drowning hurts. Invalid test. Can you name something that's not a thought experiment where a chimp has shown that higher level of reasoning? Where they show a preference specifically about their own life/death. Edit: For example, an especially good test for a human would be a button that gives a mild zap when you press it, but if it goes unpressed then you die in your sleep from carbon monoxide poisoning. That shows actual preference for life, and not just running away from a negative stimulus.

anarchy8 11y ago

Because they are not unborn humans, they are undeveloped fetuses. Let's try not to bring political discussion to HN News. This isn't reddit.

notdonspaulding 11y ago
Judges setting legal precedent is an inherently political issue. The article is political in nature. I'm asking HNers to explain a relevant philosophical belief they hold. It seems squarely on-topic. This isn't reddit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
bennettfeely 11y ago
Making the claim that fetuses are somehow not human beings is an example of a purely political statement.

DSMan195276 11y ago

The entire argument is fairly arbitrary, so honestly it's not very hard to rationalize yourself into believing either side.

trhway 11y ago

>Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? How do you rationalize it? sentience level. Chimpanzee has higher sentience than a 4-weeks old fetus which has sentience level of a fish. I'm all for granting protections and rights (and responsibilities coming with it) according to sentience level independently of species. This in particular would equate an adult chimpanzee and 3-4 year toddler and senile 95 years old with advanced Alzheimer.

notdonspaulding 11y ago
I can hunt and eat a deer, which has roughly the sentience level than my 6-month old baby. Are you saying we should confer more rights on the deer, or less on my child?
- trhway 11y ago
  i said it clearly - we should confer equal rights on both independently of species, including the specific right of not being killed. To "zigzero" below: your desire to kill a highly sentient living being just to satisfy your urge for some peculiar taste you like is ridiculous. Mommy, i want a candy, a-aaa-a! Time to grow up.
  - sigzero 11y ago
    Really? So now I cannot hunt deer for food? Please. That argument is ridiculous.
    - Zirro 11y ago
      Unless you live in a society where hunting for food is essential to ensure your own survival, I believe a lot of people are prepared to disagree with you.
      - notdonspaulding 11y ago
        I've heard this argument before, but I don't quite understand the logic. I really struggle to come up with any other ethic I hold where it doesn't break down: - Unless you live in a society where raping young boys is essential to your survival, it's wrong. - The racism of the past was OK, but as a society we've moved past the need for it, so now it's morally wrong. What's an example of another moral or ethic that you would say follows this pattern of being malleable across space and time? Is this just ends-justify-the-means moral relativism?

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Does anyone here support both the granting of habeus corpus to chimpanzees as well as the legalized killing of unborn humans in the womb? The granting of habeas corpus to chimpanzees in this case is a method of allowing a legal argument as to their status to be heard and decided; it isn't a grant of personhood so much as a granting someone the right to make an argument on their behalf that they are entitled to such a grant. The status of fetuses and the limits on the power of states to grant them rights that would interfere with a woman's right to choose vis-à-vis abortion has been litigated fairly exhaustively to the highest courts.