personhood

Expanding personhood doesn't necessitate removing classes of people from personhood, but allowing for its redifitinion makes it possible.

Whether that means they should be granted personhood, however, seems a tricky question, which i assume is best fought out by lawyers.

Peter Singer has advocated both for the personhood of certain animals and the non-personhood of certain humans (including live infants below certain cognitive thresholds) for some time.

The atrocities of the last century should probably suffice to establish a measure of caution when redefining personhood.

Coporate personhood is therefore just a symptom of a larger problem, a disinterested and easily manipulated electorate.

The term personhood is used widely for embyronic and non-human rights, that's the extent of my claim.

However, the actual legal issue is whether the law extends to the embyro the right of personhood.

Note that printing presses do NOT have personhood, yet they still have freedom of the press.

There's something offputting about referring to people by their reddit usernames as if that's an important facet to their personhood.

It is smart PR from Apple and Microsoft to present their softs as AIs with personhood but these are 'just' logic trees.

Expanding the definition to include animals necessarily involves redefining personhood, and that's the risk.

My opinion is that we should give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to personhood.

Yes, we could redefine the term "personhood" to (in the legal context) refer to something else, and then use the word "obbgobblegooks" to refer to the concept that personhood currently refers to.

We should however acknowledge that "personhood" is not a well-defined requirement for the rights we grant to persons.

It calls into question, "What is personhood to begin with?" There have many documented cases of dolphins rescuing drowning human swimmers or protecting surfers from sharks.

It sounds like you don't have any complaints about the actual phenomenon that is commonly referred to as "corporate personhood," and that your only complaint is about the label itself.