Chimpanzees, Dolphins, and Elephants are not Persons

       A coherent definition of “person” that recognizes all human beings as people is of the highest importance for the preservation of human society because only such a definition can permanently enshrine the dignity and equality of all human beings in civil law. Today, there are some who argue for the personhood of certain animals because these animals have a high level of functional ability. By incorrectly identifying personhood with functional ability, these men and women knowingly or unknowingly deny the personhood of many low-functioning human beings, thereby placing human lives in grave danger of manipulation, torture, and disposal.

       In this way, the debate surrounding the alleged personhood of animals is directly related to the abortion debate; however, the two formats of debate differ in an important way. The abortion debate is a battle over how to define the terms “human being,” “human person,” and “human rights” because it is the definitions of these terms that determine whether abortion is an act of unjust killing or merely the use of a woman’s right to choose. Those who argue for the personhood of animals, however, do not dispute the definitions of “person” and “rationality” (also called “reason”). Rather, the proponents of animal personhood claim that certain high-functioning animals fit into the already-established definitions of these words, and they seek to prove this by demonstrating the ways in which these animals are similar to human beings. In order to oppose this faulty perspective, the following will illustrate that the definitions of “person” and “rationality” are misunderstood by the proponents of animal personhood, and that these definitions do not, in fact, include any known animals other than human beings.

A Coherent Definition of Person

A person is an individual that is capable of self-knowledge, of self-mastery in matters of moral significance, and of freely giving himself or herself in relationship with other persons.¹ In other words, a person is someone rather than something, a “who” capable of expressing himself or herself as an “I.”² These capacities are founded on intellect and free will, which manifest themselves in the human person as discursive reason and a culpable moral conscience.³

Reasons Why Human Beings are the only Persons among the Known Animals

First, it must be said that a person is not merely a subject that performs certain actions; rather, a person is primarily a subject capable of certain actions. Unconscious individuals illustrate this point: people who are sleeping or under anesthesia remain persons because they have the capacity to express their personhood, although they are obstructed from doing so by their circumstances. The capacities pertaining to personality – namely, those mentioned in the definition above – set persons apart from non-persons and are especially worthy of civil protection because they enable civilization.

Rationality (also called reason) is not merely an additional trait or group of traits added to non-rational animals; rather, it is an essentially different way of being, thinking, and acting. In other words, with regard to being, thinking, and acting, rational and non-rational animals cannot be spoken of univocally.⁴ A rational being is capable of acting and reacting “intentionally;” that is, such a being is capable of knowing itself as an independent subject, of knowing what it is doing, of knowing why it is doing it, and of thinking and acting precisely because of its knowledge of these things.⁵ For instance, a chimpanzee can detect a rule, abide by a rule, and even create a rule. However, a chimpanzee cannot reflect upon a rule as such (upon a rule as a rule), which would require an essentially different relationship with the rule: having a definition of “rule,” knowing the rule to be a rule according to that definition, knowing the self in relation to the rule, having a defined morality by which to assess the rule, etc. In addition, a rational animal is capable not only of making judgments but of judging judgments; that is, it not only can perceive what is to be gained, but can also scrutinize the moral appropriateness of its desires.⁶ It is the difference between a two-dimensional and a three-dimensional relationship: for non-rational animals, judgments involve the animal and the object; for rational animals, judgments involve the animal, the object, and the truth.⁷ In other words, the capacity to act and react intentionally brings with it conscience and culpability worthy of scrutiny in a criminal court.

Rationality is made possible by intellect, which is the function by which abstract concepts are derived from the data of the senses.⁸ Whereas the senses detect changeable realities, the intellect can surpass detection to reflect upon unchanging realities as such – existence, truth, justice, infinity, eternity, etc.⁹ By its process of abstraction, intellect enables the rational being to think and act intentionally, thereby giving moral value to thoughts and actions. The result of the scrutinizing capacity of the intellect is free will. Together, intellect and free will allow for the capacities particular to personality mentioned in the definition above.

Note: the statement that human beings are rational does not imply that all or most human beings presently act or think rationally;¹⁰ rather, it means that all human beings will be rational if nothing obstructs them from becoming and remaining rational. Among physical beings, only humans are known to have discursive reason and culpable consciences, which are manifestations of intellect and free will; therefore, human beings are the only known persons among physical beings.

The knowledge, belief, warrant, and language of human beings are not merely a greater quantity of these same in non-rational animals. Rather, these four appear in an essentially different kind, grounded in a mind that can surpass instinct and habit to achieve introspection and, in matters of moral significance, self-mastery. While all species can be said to fall somewhere on a cognitive spectrum of lowest-functioning to highest-functioning, there is a threshold on the spectrum beyond which cognitive capabilities are essentially different than those that came before. This is the threshold of moral conscience, which is also the threshold of personhood.

The essential difference between the rational mind, capable of intentional actions and reactions, and the non-rational mind is the moral value it assigns to knowledge, belief, etc. Among chimpanzees, for instance, alliances, reciprocity, a sense of the well-being of the community, an awareness of the desires of others, a sense that certain factors affect community well-being, the impetus to reconcile divisions – these astonishingly complex structures and behaviors are not accompanied by the capacity to reflect upon these concepts in themselves (an alliance as an alliance, etc.).¹¹ Like chimpanzees’ democratic governance, these organic structures and behaviors have been naturally selected because they proved beneficial. In the absence of the capacity to reflect upon these things beyond the level of a three-year old child, they are not accompanied by any moral value.¹² For instance, reconciliation, while sensed as beneficial, is not recognized as something “just” or “good” according to definitions that chimpanzees are not capable of producing. Moreover, though certain non-rational animals can associate words with concepts, these animals have not been proven to understand language in the abstract way that provides for culpable free will and the traits particular to personality. This is why no non-human animal can be diagnosed with a personality disorder of the variety observed in humans. Among the known animals, it is only in the human being that knowledge can become understanding; that defense of another can become self-sacrifice; that affection can become love; etc.

With regard to the question of personhood, a fully-functional non-rational animal is not directly comparable to a healthy a three-year old human being, although the level at which they function cognitively may be similar. Primarily, this is the case because personhood is not a matter of functional ability. Secondarily, it does not logically follow that, because a being has the functional ability of a healthy three-year old human being, it is equivalent in dignity or even in potential utilitarian worth to a human being who, because of its latent and functional abilities, can intentionally do more for or against the world than a member of any other known animal species.

The reasoned position presented above is sufficient evidence that to say human beings are rational and that other animal species are non-rational is not merely an ideological judgment. The degree to which animals are presently respected and protected is deplorable and ought greatly to be increased; however, it does not logically follow that, if animals are not recognized as persons, they will not be given the respect and protection they deserve. The higher the cognitive capacity of a feeling, emoting, desiring species, the higher the degree of respect and protection that species ought to receive. However, civil laws are written by and for those whom they can govern, namely, persons, and the civil protections of personhood go far beyond the capacities of any known fully-functional non-human animal. Therefore, laws can respect and protect non-human animals but cannot pertain to them.

 

Adapted from Part II of Renna, James. Abortion, Personhood, and Marriage: a Pro-life Document in Three Parts. Amazon CreateSpace, 2015.

Citations

1 – Adapted from Catechism #357 – “He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons”

2 – Derived from Catechism #357 – “who is not just something, but someone”
3 – Intellect and free will are repeatedly regarded by the Catechism as the foundation of personhood – #341, #1834, etc.
4 – cf. Boyle’s “Univocality Assumption” – page 25
5 – Adapted from Boyle’s footnote #23 – page 22
6 – MacIntyre’s thought as passed on by RJS
7 – MacIntyre’s thought as interpreted by RJS
8 – “Abstraction” in the Catholic Encylopedia – “Abstraction is a process (or a faculty) by which the mind selects for consideration some one of the attributes of a thing to the exclusion of the rest.” Also see “Intellect” in the Catholic Encylopedia, Aquinas I, Q. 85, Art. 1, etc.
9 – cf. Aquinas – I, Q. 84, Art. 6, Reply 1
10 – cf. Boyle’s “Quanificationalist Assumption” – page 30
11 – Much of this Reply and parts of the content adapted from Q. 3, answer are the result of dialogue with JA, whose help was enlisted by DG
12 – Both in canon law (Can. 11) and in common law (citation below), seven years of age has been regarded, in practice, as the “age of reason”

All electronic texts were read on or before 11 April 2015

“Age of Reason” in West’s Encyclopedia of American Law: Second Edition. The Gale Group, 2008. Electronic version on legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. Second and Revised Edition. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online edition Copyright 2008 by Kevin Knight. www.NewAdvent.org/summa

Boyle, Matthew. “Essentially rational animals” in Rethinking Epistemology. Ed. Guenther Abel and James Conant. Berlin: Walter de Grutyer. Electronic version on dash.harvard.edu

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Missouri: Liguori Publications. English translation of the Latin text, 1994. Electronic version on www.Vatican.va

Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition. Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983.

Duffy, Francis. “Abstraction” in Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. Electronic version on www.NewAdvent.org

MacIntyre, Alisdair. Dependent Rational Animals. Carus Publishing Company, 1999.

Maher, Michael. “Intellect” in Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. Electronic version on www.NewAdvent.org

Dear Justice Ginsburg: Marriage is not Defined by Gender Roles

Dear Ireland: Vote Pro-Marriage

       The term “traditional marriage” is inaccurate both because there is only one type of relationship that can be called marriage,1 and because tradition is not the reason that such a relationship is a marriage. Unlike seeing, hearing, and the other human bodily functions, reproduction requires two people acting as one.2 In this way, consummation literally forms a marriage of persons. Therefore, the definition of marriage is determined by the nature of heterosexual acts, not by secondary issues such as cultural gender roles,3 financial considerations, etc. “Gay marriage” is also an inaccurate term because no marriage takes place between the two:1 though a homosexual couple may view the consummation of their relationship to have symbolic significance, the act is not a consummation (i.e. completion) in the literal sense. Furthermore, because heterosexual acts tend toward procreation, they contain a responsibility to be exclusive for the sake of the children conceived. Conversely, because the act of reproduction is not proper to homosexual acts, the emotional and physical affection shared by a homosexual couple does not literally contain a responsibility to be exclusive, though the two may decide upon exclusivity as a common goal.4

       Children are best served where they belong most deeply. The legal protection of marriage as a consensual, total, exclusive, and fruitful5 bond between one man and one woman not only recognizes marital sexual acts as having intrinsic6 value and societal value, but also enshrines the human right7 of children to be raised by their biological parents and with their biological siblings wherever possible and prudent. This right exists because humans flourish best in communities where they feel they belong. While the feeling of belonging cannot be guaranteed, in reality a child cannot belong more deeply to any community than the family with whom he or she shares flesh and blood. Thus, protecting a child’s right to live in his or her own family is at least protecting the opportunity to flourish in the venue where flourishing is most probable. Lastly, all other things being equal, it is preferable that children learn about man and woman from the complementary influences of their own married parents: success in this important formation is more probable in married family life because it can be accomplished sooner and more completely.8

       Surrogacy is viewed by some as a form of charity; however, this view is inaccurate in a few ways. If the child is conceived by a heterosexual act, that act is needlessly objectifying. Even if the act is done in friendship, it is not for the sake of total mutual self-gift but rather so that the woman can be used as a surrogate. If artificial reproductive technology is involved in surrogacy, other issues arise. In such cases, the child is not (or not only) the biological offspring of the relationship because genetic material must be used from at least one person of the opposite sex who is not in the couple. In other words, when homosexual couples plan to have children through the use of surrogates and donors, they are actually planning to have other people’s children,9 while also disregarding the right of those children10 to live with their biological family.

       When these methods are legalized, the unnecessary separation of a child from at least one biological parent is wrongly designated equally as ideal as the child having two biological parents.11 Such methods are used primarily to serve the desires of adults. Because of this, the rights of children are often overlooked, and children are treated as commodities rather than persons. This is perhaps seen most clearly in the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF), in which unused manufactured human embryos are discarded or given to science.12 The quality of parents, whether biological or adoptive, cannot be guaranteed; nor can it be guaranteed that a child will feel like he belongs in his or her family community even if the family is otherwise ideal. However, for the reasons stated above, in the absence of a biological family in which a child radically belongs and is wanted from the first, a close likeness to that community ought to be offered to the child.

Adapted from Part III of

Renna, James. Abortion, Personhood, and Marriage: a Pro-life Document in Three Parts. Amazon CreateSpace, 2015.

Citations

1 – a. These insights are taken from Cardinal Burke and were pointed out by LM
b. Marriage is also fittingly called “matrimony” because it is through the same act that consummates marriage that a woman becomes a mother (Latin, mater)
2 – This insight is taken from Finnis – p. 8
3 – cf. Justice Ginsburg: “[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago... Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him. There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian.”
4 – This compound insight is from Finnis – p. 20
5 – These four qualities are adapted from West’s phrasing: “free, total, faithful, and fruitful”
6 – “Intrinsic” – inherent; belonging naturally. Definition suggested by PC
7 – “Human rights” – see Renna – Part I, Q. 3, answer
8 – This insight is from PC
9 – This insight is from Lopez and Klein as quoted in Naab’s article. These two along with Barwick and Faust9 are among a group not often mentioned: the homosexual people and children raised by homosexual couples who oppose the legal redefinition of marriage. This comment was recommended by PC.
10 – This insight is derived from Katy Faust’s open letter
11 – This insight is from Barwick and Faust as quoted in Naab’s article.
12 – Also see Renna – Part I, Q. 5, Reply 4

All electronic texts were read on or before 30 April 2015

Burke, Raymond Cardinal. Speech to the “Society for the Protection of Unborn Children” and “Voice of the Family.” Abbey Suite, Doubletree by Hilton Hotel. Chester, England. 6 March 2015.

Faust, Katy. Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent. www.ThePublicDiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

Finnis, John. “Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation’” in Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality. ed. John Corvino. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997. p. 31-43. Citations from PDF on www.Princeton.edu

Naab, Kathleen. Those Raised by Same-Sex Couples Try to Show Another Side to Marriage Debate. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/those-raised-by-same-sex-couples-try-to-show-another-side-to-marriage-debat/

U.S. Supreme Court. Obergefell vs. Hodges. Oral arguments on 28 April 2015. www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf eviscerated

West, Christopher. Sexual Honesty: a Proposal to Engaged Couples About the Truth and Meaning of Sexual Love. CD by Ascension Press, 2006. West’s talk is based upon Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching, which can be read in Man and Woman He Created Them: a Theology of the Body. Trans: Michael Waldstein. Pauline Books & Media, 2006.

​Update on HR36 Pain Capable Bill  May 12, 2015   11:42am

Call your Congressman today, May 12, 2015 before 4:30pm!  Tell them to remove the RAPE Exceptions Clause, because exceptions are inconsistant with the pro life movement, and exceptions do not support equality for all lives who feel pain.    

Click on red link to find Your Congressman and CALL TODAY!! -->       http://www.contactingthecongress.org

As of late afternoon yesterday, new language in the Bill shows, that reporting in cases of rape has not been removed. That's a good thing. However, Bill HR36 still has exceptions for those babies who have been conceived in rape, 

In Bill HR36 there are a number of paragraphs referring to the pain an unborn baby feels at approximately 20 weeks. After fourteen paragraphs of language that point to pain the unborn baby feels, the bill continues to have language that allows for those babies conceived in rape to endure the pain of abortion, that non-rape conceived babies would be protected from.

Personhood New York, does not support such measures. Rebecca Kieslling, who toured New York last fall, visiting a number of high schools and group events, has pointed out that her life was spared because at that time, abortion was illegal in Michigan. Her mother did visit two back alley abortion mills, but changed her mind to abort her child because of the law against abortion.

Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived by a serial rapist/murderer (now in prison for life), explains that not even rapists receive the death penalty for rape, so why should an innocent baby receive the death penalty?

Rebecca Kiessling who founded "Save the 1", has also mentioned that most women who conceive after rape, usually want to keep their baby, but that the threat of the rapist father returning into their lives is something they fear would happen. Many times the rapist father seeks legal custody of the child. Under great pressure from society, and feeling quite alone with their “rape baby”, these women succumb to an abortion. Those women who do not choose abortion, the majority give their baby up for adoption, to protect their baby from the rapist father .

In most States, there are no laws that protect women from the rapist father returning. Rebecca Kiessling has helped enact a Rape Survivor Child Custody law in few States that protects women from rapist fathers claiming custody. In her organization, “Save the 1”, there are close to 100 speakers who sought support and comfort through her group. Many in her group, both men and women, are available to speak at fundraisers or awareness programs. Some are currently fighting for protection from their rapist father claiming custody.

Personhood New York, along with other Personhood States across the country seek to truly protect all unborn babies at 20 weeks plus. We are asking and urging you,  to call your senators in Congress, and tell them to change the language in HR36, to that which is friendly to those babies conceived in Rape. In other words, remove the Rape Exceptions language in the bill.

After 40+ plus years  of  Roe v. Wade, it is time to make real pro life Bills, that protect all life equally across the board. We are pushing for consistent pro-life bills, to include all babies, no matter how concieved. If there is pain at 20 weeks, then there is pain for ALL babies at 20 weeks. To exclude one life because of an exception, is cruel to the innocent life.  Exceptions is dangerous because it creates an environment and thinking that some human lives do not matter. We, at Personhood New York say, ALL HUMAN LIVES MATTER!

Click here to find Your Congressman and CALL TODAY!! —> http://www.contactingthecongress.org

HR36 is Back , Worse Than Before - Will the 20 Week Ban Save Babies? ~by Darlene Pawlik

(This article is published May 10, 2015 with permission, by Save the 1)​

HR 36 Pain Capable Unborn Child
The Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives has announced that it will bring the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to the House floor for a vote on Wednesday, May 13, or Thursday, May 14.You might recall that the bill had been scheduled for a vote on January 22 during the annual March for Life when hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates would be in Washington DC to commemorate Roe v Wade, but it was pulled at the last minute.  The media's account was that the bill had a reporting requirement for rape that didn't meet with the approval of a couple of legislators.                

At first glance, there was huge support for this bill because most pro-life advocates did not know that the bill had exceptions for rape and incest, meaning that abortions would be banned after 20 weeks except if the child was conceived in rape or  incest.  When a core group of pro-life advocates found out about the exceptions and that there would be no hearing to try and remove that language, a huge opposition to the bill began and the bill was pulled off the docket. Those against the bill, including Savethe1 and Personhood Alliance objected to the huge push by National Right to Life, Susan B Anthony List and

Priests for Life asking pro-life advocates to contact their congressman to support the bill, without mentioning that the bill had exceptions for rape and incest.

The basis of the bill is that preborn babies at 20 weeks gestation feel pain as they are being killed by abortion. Is there any reason to believe that the manner in which a child is conceived impacts their ability to feel pain? Rape conceived babies feel pain too. We are developmentally the same as babies conceive in love.

The US has long been respected as a just nation. Is it just to kill a child because his or her father is a criminal? According to our laws, in no other circumstance is a child held accountable for the crimes of their father. We have courts and trial lawyers to hold people accountable by due process of the law. What due process is afforded these babies?
Emails from major pro-life organizations have already been out today to raise money based on the premiss that HR36 will save babies from abortion. A few have mentioned, while they don't condone the rape and incest exceptions, they support the bill because it will save babies. But will it?
My understanding is that the the reporting requirement has been removed. So, there may be no fear of reprisal for women claiming to have conceived by rape and less likelihood of women reporting abusers or traffickers when they conceive by rape or incest. Abortion is a trafficker's best weapon. Abortion keeps women subservient and breaks their spirits, so that abusers can continue their abuse. Coerced abortion is very prevalent. My trafficker forced me to make an appointment for an abortion and threatened my life if I didn’t abort.
How can we think that if a woman is desperate enough to submit to abortion and have her baby killed at five months pregnant, that she wouldn't be desperate enough to lie?
And what about the logic, or shall I say illogic, of this kind of a stipulation in law. How illogical is it to say that a baby who can feel pain should be protected in some cases, but not others? We have a concept here in the United States called equal protection under the law. This concept usually governs the enactment of legislation by giving a hearing to bills to be discussed. This bill was scheduled to be brought to the floor for a vote without a hearing last time and it has been scheduled without a hearing again.
The announcement that it will be voted on next week doesn't even allow for much media or lobbying for the exceptions to be removed. Savethe1 President, Rebecca Kiessling, will be there in DC along with Personhood Alliance President, Dan Becker, to reach out to as many legislators as possible next week. Please help us get the word out about the flaws in this bill and help others understand that there is either a baby worth saving or there isn't.

 Darlene Pawlik was conceived by rape and has also conceived a child as a result of sex trafficking. She has been a pro life advocate for over 23 years and currently serves as a speaker and VP of Savethe1 and NHRTL Educational Trust Chair, as well as, the NH delegate to Personhood Alliance.