Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apes Is People Too

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Story here.

For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal “people” in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus — a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.

The bag of chemicals we call “ape” is in principle no different from the bag of chemicals we call “human.” Justice Douglas famously wanted to extend rights to rocks and streams. This is where materialist reasoning must lead.

Here’s an interesting question. Would that same liberal judge extend habeas corpus rights to an eight pound human baby about to be chopped into pieces by an abortionist for the crime of not yet being born?

Comments
SA: Try google, bing or yahoo search. Term: “Late term abortion”. Then click “Images”. We were talking about partial birth which is illegal In the US,no exceptions. I don’t understand the question. Who is deliberately killing mothers? Deliberately no one, she just would be collateral damage.velikovskys
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
velikovskys Try google, bing or yahoo search. Term: "Late term abortion". Then click "Images". In the US, after decades of fighting against them, 14 states still permit late term abortions.
None,what fault did the born mother commit to make it legal to kill her?
I don't understand the question. Who is deliberately killing mothers?Silver Asiatic
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
#81 Eugen
Could anybody give opinion on: For the soul of every living thing is in the hand of God, Job 12:10
Sorry I didn't notice your post before. Here's some contextual information followed by a commentary on Job 12:10 as per your request: This is part of Job's answer to his critics. Basically in this chapter Job replies: The sovereign Lord has done this. Commentaries by Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries: 12:1–14:22 Job’s reply in this long speech starts with a blast of sarcasm against his counselors. He continues to speak to them through 13:19. Beginning in 13:20 Job turns to God, creating a major break in the speech. This inclination of Job to talk to God (to pray) is in notable contrast to the counselors, who never say a word to God. They only talk about Him 12:4–6 Job agonizes over being made a laughingstock, even to his friends, while evildoers and idolaters live in ease and security 12:7, 8 ask the beasts . . . the earth. Like Eliphaz who had called upon revelation and Bildad who had called upon tradition to support their arguments, Job calls on every creature in the universe to bear witness to his argument that the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer 12:12 This verse can also be translated as a question: “Shouldn’t wisdom be found among the aged?” The verse is irony aimed at the counselors who are old but have not become wise 12:13–25 In this unit of poetry Job expounds the doctrine of God’s sovereign freedom. Some have interpreted this as said tongue-in-cheek, a subtle criticism of God for mismanaging the universe. In this view God is limited, and needs to be “forgiven” by His creatures. But throughout this book, even when Job is raging over his suffering and suggesting doubts about God’s justice, he always assumes that God is sovereign, and that man can make no effective objection to what He does. Job wrestles with a mystery, one too deep for the shallow counselors. This part of the speech may have been provoked by Zophar’s question in 11:7, “Can you find out the deep things of God?” The poem may also be a reply to Eliphaz’s hymn in 5:1–26, where only good things happen to good people, an idea proved false in this stanza. Related biblical reference: Acts 17:28 (ESV) for ‘In Him we live and move and have our being’; [Probably from Epimenides of Crete] In him we live and move and have our being. Paul says that God brought all people into being and they only exist by His providence. In the ancient world the three great mysteries of philosophy and science were the questions of life, motion, and being Matthew Henry's Commentary: Job Chapter 12 In this and the two following chapters we have Job’s answer to Zophar’s discourse, in which, as before, he first reasons with his friends (see Job 13:19) and then turns to his God, and directs his expostulations to Him, from thence to the end of his discourse. In this chapter he addresses himself to his friends, and, I. He condemns what they had said of him, and the judgment they had given of his character, Job 12:1-5. II. He contradicts and confronts what they had said of the destruction of wicked people in this world, showing that they often prosper, Job 12:6-11. III. He consents to what they had said of the wisdom, power, and sovereignty of God, and the dominion of His providence over the children of men and all their affairs; he confirms this, and enlarges upon it, Job 12:12-25. ====================================================== ====================================================== ====================================================== And finally, a commentary on the verse you asked about: III. Job resolves all into the absolute propriety which God has in all the creatures (Job 12:10): In whose hand is the soul of every living thing. All the creatures, and mankind particularly, derive their being from Him, owe their being to Him, depend upon Him for the support of it, lie at His mercy, are under His direction and dominion and entirely at His disposal, and at His summons must resign their lives. All souls are His; and may He not do what He will with His own? The name Jehovah is used here (Job 12:9), and it is the only time that we meet with it in all the discourses between Job and his friends; for God was, in that age, more known by the name of Shaddai—the Almighty.Dionisio
April 26, 2015
April
04
Apr
26
26
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Umm, coloration is very much a part of the animal world. Their pain and suffering can be heard and observed. You have no way of supporting your claim. Sorry.Joe
April 26, 2015
April
04
Apr
26
26
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Joe:
Other animals have that
You don't know that and you have no way of knowing that. Sorry.Mapou
April 26, 2015
April
04
Apr
26
26
2015
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Mapou:
Personally, I define consciousness as the ability to associate subjective qualities or qualia (such as color sensations, tastes, timber, types of pain or pleasure, etc.) that do not exist in the physical realm with various physical stimuli.
Other animals have thatJoe
April 26, 2015
April
04
Apr
26
26
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Joe @97, I'm saying that intelligent behavior, regardless of its source, is not proof of consciousness. Personally, I define consciousness as the ability to associate subjective qualities or qualia (such as color sensations, tastes, timber, types of pain or pleasure, etc.) that do not exist in the physical realm with various physical stimuli. The neuronal firings in our visual cortex that correspond to the blue sensation are identical to the adjacent neuronal firings that give us the red sensation. My position is that these conscious sensations do not come from the material world but from our spirits. There is only one way, that I'm aware of, that our consciousness (spirit) manifests itself to others. Our infatuation with beauty and the arts is a purely spiritual phenomenon, i.e., one which requires consciousness. No intelligent machine can recognize a beautiful thing unless it is expressly programmed or trained to do it.Mapou
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
Your computer does as it is programmed to do. Any consciousness it exhibits traces back to the people who designed it and the people who programmed it. How are you defining consciousness? I am OK with Merriam-Webster. It sounds to me like you are trying to define it to exclude everything but humans.Joe
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Joe:
Consciousness is just a state of awareness. I have seen birds fly through the hole of a chain-linked fence. It had to be aware of itself, the hole and how to navigate through it. Chimpanzees plan attacks- that alone shows awareness.
My computer knows what to do when I type on the keyboard. Is it conscious? You are conflating intelligence with consciousness exactly like the materialists do.Mapou
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Consciousness is just a state of awareness. I have seen birds fly through the hole of a chain-linked fence. It had to be aware of itself, the hole and how to navigate through it. Chimpanzees plan attacks- that alone shows awareness.Joe
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
"Dying is a way of life in this world. Our priorities are all mixed up. Abortions are just part of the norm." Anybody who has ever faced the abortion decision knows that it is not the norm.unwilling participant
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
There are about 40,000 traffic fatalities in the US every year. Worldwide, the number of traffic deaths is in the millions. A few thousands people died on 9/11. The US government then spent tens of billions to invade Iraq and fight terrorism and tens of thousands of people died as a result and thousands are still dying every month. If they had spent that money on developing safe cars that drive themselves, they would save millions of lives. Dying is a way of life in this world. Our priorities are all mixed up. Abortions are just part of the norm.Mapou
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
In Canada, where there is absolutely no legal restriction on abortion, and where it's cost is covered by the government, over 90% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. Less than 0.2% occur after 20 weeks, and most of those are due to severe birth defects or the health of the mother. In fact, it is very difficult to get an abortion on demand in Canada after the 20th week simply because you won't find a doctor who will perform it. So to talk about partial birth abortions is just fear mongering. I am not in favour of abortion but making it illegal is not the answer. Improved sex education, access to birth control and support and non-stigmatizing of young women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy is the best way to reduce abortions.unwilling participant
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
SA: Yes Where? After partial birth comes “born”. A baby that is born cannot be legally “terminated”. What fault did the partially born baby commit that made it legal to kill him or her? None,what fault did the born mother commit to make it legal to kill her?velikovskys
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
MAUREEN MARY BRITELL from Sandwich, Massachusetts. Maureen and her husband Andrew, practicing Catholics, were expecting their second child in early 1994 when, at six months’ gestation, a sonogram revealed that the fetus had anencephaly. No brain was developing, only a brain stem. Experts at the New England Medical Center in Boston confirmed that the fetus the Britells had named Dahlia would not survive. The Britells’ parish priest supported their decision to induce labor and terminate the pregnancy. During the delivery, a complication arose and the placenta would not drop. The umbilical cord had to be cut, aborting the fetus while still in delivery in order to prevent serious health risks for Maureen. Dahlia had a Catholic funeral. http://amptoons.com/blog/2003/03/14/real-women-who-have-had-partial-birth-abortions/
Zachriel
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Vel
Eight pound babies are legally terminated by partial birth abortions
Yes
for the crime of not being born?
After partial birth comes "born". A baby that is born cannot be legally "terminated". What fault did the partially born baby commit that made it legal to kill him or her? It must be that the partially born baby committed "the crime of not being born".Silver Asiatic
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
SA: That’s how they do what are called partial birth abortions. Eight pound babies are legally terminated by partial birth abortions for the crime of not being born?velikovskys
April 25, 2015
April
04
Apr
25
25
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Joe:
If other animals are not conscious then how the heck do they know what to do? Many organisms solve problems and that is direct evidence of consciousness.
Joe, you're confusing intelligence with consciousness. A thermostat is not conscious but it "knows' what to do. We now have cars that "know" how to reliably drive themselves in many different environments. We have AI programs that can learn to play a video game all by themselves and they do it better than human players. Are they conscious? I don't think so.Mapou
April 24, 2015
April
04
Apr
24
24
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
If other animals are not conscious then how the heck do they know what to do? Many organisms solve problems and that is direct evidence of consciousness.Joe
April 24, 2015
April
04
Apr
24
24
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
COREEN COSTELLO from Agoura, California. In April 1995, seven months pregnant with her third child, Coreen and her husband Jim found out that a lethal neuromuscular disease had left their much-wanted daughter unable to survive. Its body had stiffened and was frozen, wedged in a transverse position. In addition, amniotic fluid had puddled and built up to dangerous levels in Coreen’s uterus. Devout Christians and opposed to abortion, the Costellos agonized for over two weeks about their decision and baptized the fetus in utero. Finally, Coreen’s increasing health problems forced them to accept the advice of numerous medical experts that the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) was, indeed, the best option for Coreen’s own health, and the abortion was performed. Later, in June 1996, Coreen gave birth to a healthy son. http://amptoons.com/blog/2003/03/14/real-women-who-have-had-partial-birth-abortions/
Zachriel
April 24, 2015
April
04
Apr
24
24
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
velikovskys That's how they do what are called partial birth abortions.Silver Asiatic
April 24, 2015
April
04
Apr
24
24
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
news: “Here’s an interesting question. Would that same liberal judge extend habeas corpus rights to an eight pound human baby about to be chopped into pieces by an abortionist for the crime of not yet being born?” Eight pound babies are being chopped up?velikovskys
April 24, 2015
April
04
Apr
24
24
2015
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
"Here’s an interesting question. Would that same liberal judge extend habeas corpus rights to an eight pound human baby about to be chopped into pieces by an abortionist for the crime of not yet being born?" The answer, of course, is no, because any horror or injustice that can legally be perpetrated on any human being advances progressive causes. So it is an advantage to the progressive that unborn children can legally be killed by dismemberment, just as it is an advantage if the law equates chimps and humans. Does anyone remember Baby Doe of Bloomington, Indiana, legally starved to death in a hospital at the behest of his parents, because he had Down syndrome?News
April 24, 2015
April
04
Apr
24
24
2015
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
Could anybody give opinion on: For the soul of every living thing is in the hand of God, Job 12:10Eugen
April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PDT
Unwilling Recipient.... Read this; http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdfAndre
April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
Mapou I agree with you 100% if God gave animals a conscience and consciousness but no free will he would be one evil dude......Andre
April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Collin, very good point. I agree. The only one I can feel fairly certain about is myself.unwilling participant
April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
ppolish:
If a Zoo performed an abortion on a chimp mother to control zoo population, there would be some conflicted Humanists. I don’t think it would be right. “But the chimp was raped.” Still, find the chimp baby a foster zoo or something. Children Chimps of rape are still precious. Duh.
LOLMapou
April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
UP:
Their consciousness may be at a different level than ours, but it clearly exists.
Here are the reasons for my stance on the consciousness of animals: 1. As a Christian, I believe that Yahweh is a benevolent creator. I don't think that they would create zillions of species with the capacity to consciously suffer but with no possibility of salvation. 2. Animal behavior, such as seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, can be easily emulated in machines. It's called temporal reinforcement learning. It's a mechanical, cause-effect process. I don't believe for a second that it constitutes consciousness. Otherwise, a thermostat would also be conscious. And why stop at a thermostat? Even a grain of sand would be conscious. 3. Materialism cannot explain our infatuation with beauty and the arts. Why? Simply because motivation (a set of likes and dislikes) necessarily anticipates its targets or objects. The problem is that the target must be known and pre-programmed beforehand. Other than the basic survival instincts, we are not preprogrammed with such likes and dislikes because they cannot be known beforehand. 4. Of course, Darwinian evolution does not and cannot give a rat's behind about music and the arts so as to select for them. I have other reasons for my position but I think this is enough for now.Mapou
April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
Squirrels understand nuts much better than you do Collin - that much is certain.ppolish
April 23, 2015
April
04
Apr
23
23
2015
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply