I'd like to jump right in and get this discussion off to a quirky start right away by pointing out that in certain cases, dogs are already viewed as "persons" from a legal standpoint. Police Dogs are deputized. They are given legal authority to arrest individuals. They carry a badge. They are given retirement. Their human partners refer to them as their "partner". Assaulting a canine officer carries the same penalty as assaulting a human officer. Resisting arrest from a canine officer carries the same penalty as resisting arrest from a human officer.

For the purpose of doing their job, they are granted the same level of agency as a human officer. In their personal life, however, they have the same agency as any other dog (as is appropriate).

On the other hand, if a canine officer attacked and killed an unarmed child because he thought it had a gun, the canine officer would probably be put down.

Whereas if a human officer attacked and killed an unarmed child because he thought it has a gun, the human officer would probably just get put on administrative leave.

So obviously, legal personhood has it's limits.

Quirky is right! Why would you want to take the conversation in this direction? Police dogs are not given retirement. Their agent is provided funds to care for the animal. They cannot determine how the funds are spent.

Assaulting a canine officer carries the same penalty because the canine is acting on orders from the real officer. Without those orders, it's just another dog. I would also argue that "resisting arrest from a canine..." is rediculous. A canine cannot arrest you because they cannot read you your rights. The canine can "detain" you until the real officer is in a position to perform the arrest.

Your comment about a canine officer "attack[ing] and kill[ing] an unarmed child because he thought it had a gun..." made me laugh out loud. First, just because of the wording you chose. In one sentence, you referred to the dog as an officer and a child as "it." Sorry, just hit me as being funny. Second, there is no way we can determine what the dog was thinking, they cannot convey their thoughts in enough detail. Yes, of course the dog would be put down in that case. They are trained not to use lethal force. If one did, it is certainly grounds for being put down.

I would hardly assign the word personhood even to police dogs. They are only granted enough status (protection) to allow them to act on their masters' behalf.

I think you aren't even in left field with this observation - you're in the parking lot.

Mark,

Sorry, the gender-neutral pronound is kind of a hold-over from a German family background. In German, the gender neutral pronoun is used for a child, and in some areas it is preserved in the regional English. Completely accidental, I assure you. It just sneaks in sometimes when I am not thinking. Kind of like calling ships "she" or "her"

The kind of "personhood" I'm talking about here is legal "personhood" that is, the legal recognition that a being has the right to have it's interests represented. In this case the dog has legal standing to have it's interests represented. It is a legally protected being performing a valuable social function. It demonstrates autonomy by responding to the training and engaging in the work, or not. Police dogs killed in the line of duty are given police funerals. They are "given retirement" in the sense that "retired" police dogs are not sold, but are found custodial homes and are cared for. They can earn medals and commendations, and their behavior is subject to internal review to determin if they acted in accordance with their training.

This is the sort of "personhood" being sought for the Chimp that was brought up before...the question of if it is ever appropriate for legal reasons to allow non-humans the right to have their interests represented, or if they are only property and their interests are immaterial.

I don't think it's a rediculous subject. If it is possible for something alive and human to be a non-person (say, a human fetus with no brain development which will die outside the womb), then it would invite the question if there are certain situations where a non-human could become legally represented as a "person". With agency exercised in their behalf by humans, but still with their interests being represented. But you are certainly welcome to discuss what you would like to discuss and ignore this conversation. It is, after, all, an open discussion thread.

Things which aren't even alive are legally given "personhood" for instance, corporations. Because they function socially and with autonomous will (in their own interest).

Neil says: If you pick “viability,” how do you know what is viable for each child? If viability depends on the child, the availability of health care in the area and the ability to afford that health care, then the line could be all over the place.

Even though there is a gray area, there is still a defined area on non viability and of viability. An 8 week fetus is not viable. A healthy 30 week fetus is. A fetus with no brain is not viable and neither is a fetus whose organs are developing on the outside of it's body. The fact that we cannot be sure of viablity in the case of say, a 20-22 week old fetus does not affect viability as a good standard in cases where it is clear.

Regarding police dogs. I don't think the officers who know and work with these dogs believe them to be just machines or tools that they dispense at their will. One relies on a good dog acting on one's behalf. For example, when my dog and I were attacked by another dog, she didn't wait for me to tell her to protect me, she just kept herself between me and the attacking dog.

moving a bit to the field: The facts are that we recognize in many of our anti-cruelty laws that animals are not mere property and their interests must be taken into consideration. We may not set them on fire, starve them, freeze them, set them against each other etc. What is odd is how inconsistent we are in these laws that we allow pigs for slaughter to be frozen en route to slaughter, chickens to die in heaps of their own waste, cows to be maimed, cats and dogs skinned alive for fur trim, rabbits have drain cleaner poured into their eyes and more. And I'm just talking about animals we create to do this to. no issue of over population and all that. Most of the harm doesn't save our life. It doesn't make us healthier. It adds very little happiness to our lives. Why do we allow this?

Running beyond the parking lot: Why do we scream about potential human life when we cause so much suffering to the life that is already here? I don't mean to say we shouldn't worry about potential human life, I just don't get the imbalance and I see it afoot in many discussions regarding the autonomy of the independent persons who find another being dependent upon them whether it be a fetus or an alzheimers patient. Why would we say a woman has no choice, that she is OBLIGATED to give up her health and possibly her life for a baby? (don't hand me that "innocent human life stuff. That is just code for baby because only babies are innocent.)

Miles to go before I sleep.....