“I ask the court, can a human being breathe fire? No, of course not. Can a human being fly unaided? Absolutely not. When you shoot human being with a gun, does the bullet bounce off their bare skin with nary a mark? Never. These are all indisputable facts about the species Homo sapiens.
“And yet, the organism at the center of these case can breathe fire, can fly unaided, does have bulletproof skin. Therefore, by pure logical reasoning, it, no matter its external shape and appearance, nor its origins and parentage, cannot be human. And — setting aside the matter of corporate personhood, irrelevant to this case — the law is clear that legal personhood, and human rights, apply to natural persons, which is to say, to living human beings alone.
“Now, one might point to the various personal documents and forms of identification to argue that the state has already recognized the being as a person. But if, say, the state were, either through accident or fraud, issue a Social Security number, or a drivers’ license, to a golden retriever, they would not mean the state has declared the dog a person. Instead, the documents are clearly null and void, as improperly issued. The same surely applies here.
“Thus, I submit to the court, that the organism in question, being not human, and thus not a person, first lacks the legal ability to stand as a plaintiff in this case. And secondly, having no human rights, there are thus no legal barriers to the state’s proposed plan of confinement and scientific investigation of the subject, including the proposed eventual dissection.”