"Do Vampires have rights?" Topic

link

Ummmm, skip the first three paragraphs. WARNING: CA CONTENT!!!

Then, read on.

What PC term should we refer to vampires by, if they are conceded rights?
Haemophages?
The Differently Vital?

Do people who are unable to seperate fact from fantasy have rights?

If so, should those rights be removed until they get 'better'?

Ontology my arse, Plato'd be spinning in his grave…

Nephaelim?

The living challenged? Or would that be zombies?

In reference to the article I quote the comedian Ron White, "Next time you have a thought, let it go"

Dave

Once upon a time, people seriously debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Now that seems quaint.

The problem with questions like this, and you see them all over the internet, is that, vampires being ancient and ambiguous folklore, there's not a strict definition. Different people may have different definitions, then they get into a debate about whether or not they're human without first reaching agreement on what a vampire is or what a human is, and there they go…

I think if you came up with a solid definition of vampire, it would not differ from the definition of human much. It would be a person who had some things happen to them, who then had some different attributes as a result. Like someone who loses a limb. They lost their heartbeat, and developed some powerful preferences. They'd have plenty of rights, including the right to claim discrimination.

Andrew

Hemovore

Daylight challenged.

But should vampires be allowed to marry? I mean, they aren't men and women anymore right? And marriage is only allowed between men and women.

Unless you live in California nycjadie! As for vampires being given rights, a dog, horse, cat, intelligent pig, or any other animal has no rights under our laws. In fact, until the civil war in the US certain people had no rights as they were property. In the case of a vampire, being an animal, I would argue it had no rights. However, it was once human and therefore it had rights. The question then remains – when a once human becomes an undead, does he or she retain her rights under the constitution, or do their inalienable rights end with their death. If one looks at the tax implications, death ends your taxable year and your obligation to pay taxes is dealt with through the legal process of probate. However, if one were now "dead, but undead" and still capable of managing one's financial affairs, albeit by email, during non-standard business hours, and the like, would the IRS prosecute you for failing to pay taxes? I can guarantee that the IRS would indeed prosecute as any income to any entity, dead or alive, is of interest to the IRS. I am sure that there is an internal IRS decision on this matter somewhere. So, based upon these assumptions, that when a human, previously subject to pay taxes becomes dead and then undead and still capable of managing one's financial affairs, the taxable income of the undead is still subject to being taxed in the eyes of the IRS. Based upon this analogy and referring back to the constitutional decisions and the declaration of independence that congress cannot take property without due process of law, that vampires would retain their rights. However, congress could pass laws which would limit the amount of process which was due them prior to taking their property, and in the case of a vampire who takes a human life in his efforts to stay "undead" he would be subject to prosecution and ultimately could face the "death penalty" which would be a manner of execution in which the undead would remain dead.

So, to answer your question John, under a constitutional analysis, it is my opinion that vampires would retain their constitutional rights as they were once human and would retain their rights into the undead realm unless and until they violated someone elses rights and were sentenced to death and or seizure of their property.

No, they don't have rights, since they don't exist.

If they did exist, then they ought to have rights, since they're basically indistinguishable from people. If they misbeahave, then those rights might become constrained, just like other peoples' rights.

As for PC terms, the acceptable one would change every decade or so.

Moron and idiot used to be scientific terms, after all.
-Kle.

If they can hire a lawyer, they will have rights.

Or are lawyers REALLY the next evolution in vampires, the dreaded DAYWALKERS? Hmmm, I'll bet they'll never tell. I know my brother is a lawyer, but the DO go away for three years and are rarely heard from during that time. Who really knows what happens in Law School? I've heard it said that lawyers have no soul. I read it in the paper, so it must be true. I don't think my brother has a soul, but I could be prejudiced in that regard by 18 years of random beatings and general abuse.

Wait, there's someone at a door yammering about a 'Cease and Desist' order. It seems, that refers to me……

Jovian1, wouldn't the income earning undead be considered part of their estate? Look at Einstein and Elvis for example.

No, rather than an arguement for vampire rights, I forsee a new niche industry of executors exploiting the hard earned gains of their deceased clients.

I do believe Murphy should be involved in this.

Hmmm, Murpjy is a Vampire?

Ummm, that would be Murphy, I guess.

Under the law, I would assume the vampire to be classed as human. They are simply humans who have contracted a viral disease that results in certain cellular changes.

They would certainly have the same rights as anyone else born in the country in which they were born in has. If they were naturalized citizens of an "adopted" country they would enjoy those rights.

That isn't to say that there wouldn't always be someone claiming their rights weren't viable or didn't actually exist, and it doesn't mean that some government body wouldn't deny those rights. It just means that they would possess those rights.

Being allowed to exercise them in the face of prejudice and hatred would be another question.

As long as they were never actually tried and convicted or felony assault. I don't know if turning someone into undead is a crime in and of itself, but I'm sure sucking someone's blood is, if they have the capacity afterwards to press charges.

JW

Jovian 1 makes some excellent points. The IRS, though, would simply schedule all hearings for daylight hours, knowing that the undead would be unable to attend, and thus confiscate his property by default, receiving a summary judgment, for the defendant failing to respond to legally delivered notices of hearing.

JW