"We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
"I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker
2. They would be orangutan rights not "human rights" because an orangutan isn't a human obviously. The case didn't argue that she was a human, but a person.
3. Because apes are obviously drastically different from flies.
This is hardly unprecedented. Animal cruelty is a crime in many countries, including the United States. We afford many animals a right against violence and neglect.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
She's a she actually. It will matter to her because her quality of life could be drastically improved if the ruling isn't appealed.However it doesn't 'care' about the proceedings because it isn't even aware of them or what they mean.
Why?I'm not going to pay close attention to any legal ruling coming out of Argentina of all places.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Good. Animals should have some basic legal protections.
This is not a first. A court in a semi-autonomous island that is part of Spain has ruled similarly in the past. I don't remember which island; maybe Minorca. I don't have a link; I read this news a while ago. Basically they recognized primates as persons, granted them a number of personhood rights, and made killing a primate a felony similar to killing a human (but punished with smaller sentences).
I believe it is a scientific fact (as confirmed by a panel of scientists from Oxford University) that many animal species are sentient. The Oxford panel included many species; I'd probably be a little more restrictive and consider as such only the highly intelligent ones like the great apes, the dolphins, and let's not forget the pigs (it is a poorly known fact that pigs are highly intelligent, much more than dogs and cats). Those species whose individuals have a sense of self, understand their destiny, anticipate their demise with anguish, have a concept of families and loved ones, have some sort of rudimentary language or the ability to learn one, etc., as it's been proven about a few animal species, should enjoy some protections under the law. It would be the humane thing to do.
Animal cruelty of any kind is despicable, however I don't think that considering very unsophisticated animals such as fish and chicken as livestock, harvested or raised for human consumption, is particularly wrong; hopefully more humane methods for raising and killing them should be employed; this said, I'll gladly eat them. I'm no vegetarian, much less vegan. I love meat. I think cows are also not very intelligent (while Oxford University considered all large mammals as sentient).
The highly intelligent species, though, I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards them. Great Apes and dolphins are clearly capable of human-like thinking and should enjoy several rights, I think.
Last edited by GreatNews2night; 12-22-14 at 12:13 AM.