| Should Zombies have rights? |
Time to start a debate!
Should Zombies have rights? They are renaminated corpses whose only purpose is to kill other people and spread the infection. Or are they? Perhaps Zombies are sick people who need are help, and whose human rights we should guarantee? What do you guys think? Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
It depends, are we giving rights to shambling corpses or merely sick people? If it's sick people then I do think that if they can be cured then they should have rights. Otherwise the only right I suggest we give them is the right to receive a bullet in the head.
I mean ... we generally give corpses rights, no? I mean -- we have laws that prohibit the desecration there of. So ... yeah. I think so.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
What about rights as in human rights? For instance, the right to not be "killed" (you know what I mean)?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Well, genuinely, if corpses are on the prowl for warm flesh, wouldn't that mean they have already been desecrated?
A test must prove they are human.
If failed, no rights. If passed, rights.
They obviously have human bodies. The question is, should they still have human rights? I mean, they are dead, but they still can move, make sounds, etc. Should we just exterminate them? Would that qualify as genocide?
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Before we address whether or not they have rights, we must first establish whether or not they even qualify as sentient life. They lack:
1.) A means of communication with each other. 2.) Emotion 3.) Intelligence 4.) Life 5.) Hunger? They crave living flesh, but do they need it? If they are dead, then they lack the ability to digest food. Which means they don't require the energy that living things require to act. (10-27-2014, 04:57 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: What about rights as in human rights? For instance, the right to not be "killed" (you know what I mean)? So, do you mean the right not to be desecrated? But I wonder, if they can be "cured" and return to their human lives instead of finally dropping dead due the "cure", wouldn't that mean they're still somewhat alive? (10-27-2014, 06:19 PM)TAC Saxton Wrote: Before we address whether or not they have rights, we must first establish whether or not they even qualify as sentient life. They lack: They could be considered alive because of:
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
I am a Super Villain
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |