JacobGalt Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 I mean the kind of man that can't think at all and must have someone to feed him, move him, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anton Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 I mean the kind of man that can't think at all and must have someone to feed him, move him, etc. My stab at it is no. He wouldn't be considered human if he cannot think, and cannot act in anyway. Apart from the obvious biological outlook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Wolf Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 (edited) Again, please do try to do a little more than just post a topic to just ask a question. Ask us why you're asking us this question: what dilemma's you're having. State a problem of mentally retarded people being considered someone with the same rights as us. And if you can provide examples. Because this question is impossible to answer without examples. You could be referring to a vegetable, for all I know. In the sense of contract rights, I would have to say no. This is based purely on my knowledge of the law as it currently is - that a mentally adjudicated insane person has a void contract. Since he is mentally damaged, I would say he needs someone to confirm any contracts he makes, depending upon his level of insanity. Edited August 1, 2010 by Black Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 Wow! Thanks again, JacobGalt. This topic has never ever been discussed in the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianleepainter Posted August 1, 2010 Report Share Posted August 1, 2010 You might find this thread on the topic of "broken" units to be of interest: link to previous thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomer Ravid Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) They do all long they are people, and have that rational faculty. As their not, they 90% belong to their owners \ parents (I do not know yet about fully. I still have to think of nonprimitive animals' right: ethically for their emotion and a tiny bit of free will [like when a dog chooses who to come over] probably demand emotional rights -- not rights to live and to property [about why they don't I'll speak in the consideration about animals' rights], but not to be suffering as a result of physical force of man up from a certain level of -- still I've got no way to prove it, yet). T.R. Edited August 24, 2010 by Tomer Ravid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.