Bronx Zoo Elephant Not a Person Court Rules

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
There are actually people who believe that animals should have the rights of humans and thus want the American court system to bestow personhood on them. If you want to see what I am talking about Google the above.

The court ruled 5-2 that elephants are not persons. That means two judges----actually believe animals should be granted the rights of persons.

What has this to do with abortion? Everything. It seems keeping an elephant confined to a Zoo is cruel. Thus, we have to give animals personhood so they can have our rights. Ironically, most of these radicals who want animals to have rights also support abortion.

Question to abortion supporters: why should we grant animals personhood status when they are clearly NOT persons, when we refuse to recognize actual people who ARE persons and their rights? Why should animals have more rights than unborn children?
 
There are actually people who believe that animals should have the rights of humans and thus want the American court system to bestow personhood on them. If you want to see what I am talking about Google the above.

The court ruled 5-2 that elephants are not persons. That means two judges----actually believe animals should be granted the rights of persons.

What has this to do with abortion? Everything. It seems keeping an elephant confined to a Zoo is cruel. Thus, we have to give animals personhood so they can have our rights. Ironically, most of these radicals who want animals to have rights also support abortion.

Question to abortion supporters: why should we grant animals personhood status when they are clearly NOT persons, when we refuse to recognize actual people who ARE persons and their rights? Why should animals have more rights than unborn children?
It's funny that they think they have to argue for personhood for an elephant as if only with such a designation could we expect elephants to be tested humanely. This is what happens when God is ripped from the landscape. Both humans and elephants are creations of God both deserving of respect and humane treatment. But neither of them are thought of as Gods creations anymore so "person hood" has replaced God.
 
There are actually people who believe that animals should have the rights of humans and thus want the American court system to bestow personhood on them. If you want to see what I am talking about Google the above.

The court ruled 5-2 that elephants are not persons. That means two judges----actually believe animals should be granted the rights of persons.

What has this to do with abortion? Everything. It seems keeping an elephant confined to a Zoo is cruel. Thus, we have to give animals personhood so they can have our rights. Ironically, most of these radicals who want animals to have rights also support abortion.

Question to abortion supporters: why should we grant animals personhood status when they are clearly NOT persons, when we refuse to recognize actual people who ARE persons and their rights? Why should animals have more rights than unborn children?
I would agree that trying to grant personhood to an elephant is absurd. Cruelty to animals should be looked at in its own right, not tacked on to something else. Whether zoos are cruel or no has nothing to do with the personhood of the animals.

More broadly the issue perhaps is whether an adult elephant has more moral worth than a human embryo. If it were an alien visitor making the judgement, this would be a no-brainer. Just as it would be if we were forced to judge between an adult elephant and a dolphin embryo. But, as I am told frequently here, morality is not relative, and whether it is moral to keep elephants in zoos has nothing whatever to do with whether it is moral to kill human embryos in abortions. The use of the term "personhood" in both arguments is a distraction, since obviously neither is a person.
 
I would agree that trying to grant personhood to an elephant is absurd. Cruelty to animals should be looked at in its own right, not tacked on to something else. Whether zoos are cruel or no has nothing to do with the personhood of the animals.

You have no psych credentials. Zero clinical credentials. Interesting how watching atheeists lie to my face about my credentials. Shows they just do not believe in gathering facts.
More broadly the issue perhaps is whether an adult elephant has more moral worth than a human embryo.
How do you measure imaginary "moral worth"?


If it were an alien visitor making the judgement, this would be a no-brainer. Just as it would be if we were forced to judge between an adult elephant and a dolphin embryo. But, as I am told frequently here, morality is not relative, and whether it is moral to keep elephants in zoos has nothing whatever to do with whether it is moral to kill human embryos in abortions.

How do you prove the word "obviously" and not apply it to gender benders?
The use of the term "personhood" in both arguments is a distraction, since obviously neither is a person.
 
It's funny that they think they have to argue for personhood for an elephant as if only with such a designation could we expect elephants to be tested humanely. This is what happens when God is ripped from the landscape. Both humans and elephants are creations of God both deserving of respect and humane treatment. But neither of them are thought of as Gods creations anymore so "person hood" has replaced God.
Sad sad courtroom. They didn't take a deposition from the elephant or let the elephant testify under oath.
 
You have no psych credentials. Zero clinical credentials. Interesting how watching atheeists lie to my face about my credentials. Shows they just do not believe in gathering facts.
My medical qualifications are worth more than yours. I have a first aid certificate that lapsed 15 years ago. My experience is greater than yours also, since 35 years ago I gave someone CPR. Why would anyone lie to my face about my credentials or experience? Why spend 95% of one's posts here lying at all?

How do you measure imaginary "moral worth"?
Exactly the question I ask of those who think that morality is objective and absolute.

How do you prove the word "obviously" and not apply it to gender benders?
Because only a total moron or possibly a baptist parson, would think that a "gender bender is not a person.
 
I would agree that trying to grant personhood to an elephant is absurd. Cruelty to animals should be looked at in its own right, not tacked on to something else. Whether zoos are cruel or no has nothing to do with the personhood of the animals.

More broadly the issue perhaps is whether an adult elephant has more moral worth than a human embryo. If it were an alien visitor making the judgement, this would be a no-brainer. Just as it would be if we were forced to judge between an adult elephant and a dolphin embryo. But, as I am told frequently here, morality is not relative, and whether it is moral to keep elephants in zoos has nothing whatever to do with whether it is moral to kill human embryos in abortions. The use of the term "personhood" in both arguments is a distraction, since obviously neither is a person.
I would suggest an adult elephant does not have more moral worth than a human embryo. You aren't an alien visitor though and as a result I'm not sure you can really speak authoritatively on their behalf. What you're applying there seem to be your thoughts. But maybe you have access to alien visitors I'm not aware of so I am aware which would make you more of an expert in that regard than I imagined. Maybe we should just keep it to what we think.
 
I would suggest an adult elephant does not have more moral worth than a human embryo. You aren't an alien visitor though and as a result I'm not sure you can really speak authoritatively on their behalf. What you're applying there seem to be your thoughts. But maybe you have access to alien visitors I'm not aware of so I am aware which would make you more of an expert in that regard than I imagined. Maybe we should just keep it to what we think.
I think that what makes us think that human embryos are worth more than elephants (those of us that do) make that judgement based on the fact that we are human beings and were once human embryos ourselves. On any disinterested measure the reverse is clearly true. After all, elephants are definitely sentient, arguably sapient. The human embryo is neither, whatever its potential may be. That doesn't make our human judgement wrong, as long as we remember that it is a human judgement.
 
I think that what makes us think that human embryos are worth more than elephants (those of us that do) make that judgement based on the fact that we are human beings and were once human embryos ourselves. On any disinterested measure the reverse is clearly true. After all, elephants are definitely sentient, arguably sapient. The human embryo is neither, whatever its potential may be. That doesn't make our human judgement wrong, as long as we remember that it is a human judgement.
That's sounds like the little kids who would rather have the nickel than the dime. That's not a reference to the comparative size of an elephant to an embryo btw its an understanding of what's more valuable in the long run. A chicken alive is worth much more than one that's dead.
 
I think that what makes us think that human embryos are worth more than elephants (those of us that do) make that judgement based on the fact that we are human beings and were once human embryos ourselves. On any disinterested measure the reverse is clearly true. After all, elephants are definitely sentient, arguably sapient. The human embryo is neither, whatever its potential may be. That doesn't make our human judgement wrong, as long as we remember that it is a human judgement.
I want to respond separately to the part of the above post where you mention human judgement because I think it's relevant to the other discussion concerning the Declaration of Independence. I think more important than whether or not human judgement is right or wrong good or bad is to what end is it focused.
 
I want to respond separately to the part of the above post where you mention human judgement because I think it's relevant to the other discussion concerning the Declaration of Independence. I think more important than whether or not human judgement is right or wrong good or bad is to what end is it focused.
Yes, that's fair enough. I will look at the D of I as soon as I can. (I'm playing bridge tonight.). In the meantime I would ask you to look at the UNDHR. Then we can compare them. It's a short read.
 
Yes, that's fair enough. I will look at the D of I as soon as I can. (I'm playing bridge tonight.). In the meantime I would ask you to look at the UNDHR. Then we can compare them. It's a short read.
I read it a.long time ago but will refresh my memory
 
Yes, that's fair enough. I will look at the D of I as soon as I can. (I'm playing bridge tonight.). In the meantime I would ask you to look at the UNDHR. Then we can compare them. It's a short read.
BTW I read just the preamble and it sounds almost exactly like the Declaration of Independence. If these two things were songs the UDHR would be guilty of copyright infringement. No sense reinventing the wheel right? But I will continue it. I admit that I first glance it is more detailed.

A lot of the rest of it sounds like the US Constitution with some good and not so good additions. Overall not a bad document but I doubt it will shine brighter than the Declaration of Independence after 250 yrs. Just my initial thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Question to abortion supporters: why should we grant animals personhood status when they are clearly NOT persons, when we refuse to recognize actual people who ARE persons and their rights? Why should animals have more rights than unborn children?
Unborn children, IMO, should have all the rights that born people have.

Save one: the right to live inside another person.
 
Unborn children, IMO, should have all the rights that born people have.

Save one: the right to live inside another person.
That would only be true if the unborn child was demanding to live there. Otherwise the baby does have a right if the woman engaged in am activity that brought about it's existence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
Back
Top