[xCathedra]

I think the real caution behind giving the status of person to a non-human has nothing to do with animals, but with removing the status of person from certain classes of humans. The atrocities of the last century should probably suffice to establish a measure of caution when redefining personhood.

[adamnemecek]

can you provide an example where expanding the definition of personhood was abused as an excuse to commit atrocities?

[iamdave]

I'd consider telling an autonomous citizen what they can and cannot do with their bodies in the absence of disparate impact to the rest of the social community at large to be pretty abhorrent, and the definition of "personhood" was used to do exactly that in US abortion debates.

[xCathedra]

Expanding the definition to include animals necessarily involves redefining personhood, and that's the risk. Expanding personhood doesn't necessitate removing classes of people from personhood, but allowing for its redifitinion makes it possible.

[adamnemecek]

Your argument is similar to the argument of those who opposed gay marriage in that it claims that expanding something to another group will redefine said thing to the other group.

[arithma]

Mentally Disabled People, Hitler.

[adamnemecek]

> _expanding_ the definition of personhood