• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court in Argentina grants basic rights to orangutan

BBC News - Court in Argentina grants basic rights to orangutan


I'm uncertain as to whether this is a first, but it's certainly significant nonetheless! Of course, it could be appealed, but I see this as a step forward in the fight to recognize that it is not only humans that can be accurately regarded as "persons" or as beings that desire freedom and to be free from harm!

This is the dumbest ruling ever made by a court in history. only a idiot would find in favor of this. of course this has no bearing on US law at all.
 
Yes, we can give rights to frogs if we want also. But, when we start going to court and giving animals rights, well, that's just stupid.

Animals already have rights. For example, if an animal is endangered they are granted various protections. Pet's have various rights to prevent cruelty and ensure they are cared for. Given an orangutan ha the intellect of a 4 year old child, is self aware, is capable of empathy, and mourns the death of its friends, why would we not grant them some rights and protections that we might not would grant say a lab rat or a beetle?
 
Not in the eyes of the law. It's important to state the difference because people such as yourself like to paint this issue with an absurd brush and claim we advocate awarding other animals "human rights". They aren't human, but doesn't mean they can't be a person.

they aren't a person neither are other animals. we already have animal protection laws.

Er... you mean besides the obvious? It's easily demonstrable that orangutans live rich emotional lives and care about their own well being. This isn't as simple to prove when it comes to flies. Not to say that it's impossible, but it's clearly an issue that doesn't need to be addressed every time we concern ourselves with the rights of beings that are clearly sentient.

actually it is. flies and other creatures all exhibit some form of emotional reaction to different stimulus. they are sentient to a certain degree. if you want to follow this kind of logic at least be consistent.
which means we would have to grant personhood to numerous types of animals etc ... I doubt you want to go to prison or get a fine for swatting a fly

Animal cruelty laws do not indicate that we see other animals as persons or right's holders. Legally, they are still chattel property.

because they are animals not persons.
 
So where is the line? It's ok to kill bacteria. How about insects? Can I kill insects?

given the logic at hand the answer would be no. even bacteria has some sentient intelligence to it.
 
And, in other news, the orangutan will be replacing Bill O'Reilly on FOX News. :mrgreen:

So, there will be no changes in content or delivery.
 
Animals already have rights. For example, if an animal is endangered they are granted various protections. Pet's have various rights to prevent cruelty and ensure they are cared for. Given an orangutan ha the intellect of a 4 year old child, is self aware, is capable of empathy, and mourns the death of its friends, why would we not grant them some rights and protections that we might not would grant say a lab rat or a beetle?

No, they don't have any rights at all. Those are restraints we put on ourselves, nothing to do with the animal. What rights do cows and chickens have, we slaughter them by the thousands for food and other products? Animals are a resource, have been that for millions of years.
 
given the logic at hand the answer would be no. even bacteria has some sentient intelligence to it.

I think you're looking for a different word than "sentient."
 
Whether you want to call it a reflex or not, pain and sight reflexes, if the latter exist, are dependent on consciousness.

And how does the researcher know that?

Read up on how they do the research, it's pretty interesting stuff.
 
We do experimentation on humans, too, though with their consent. With the greater intelligence attributes that primates have, doing experimentation on them (regardless of whether they are capable of the sort of abstract reasoning that would allow them to understand and consent to such experimentation) is unethical.

Of course it is unethical. I'm being selfish and utilitarian in my analysis. I care less about their rights than I do about the potential betterment of my species.
 
I think you're looking for a different word than "sentient."

not really as it makes decisions choices etc based on the options that it has available.
it will always make the best choice for survival.

in the end it doesn't matter. according to the logic they are using it would be a crime to kill insects or bacteria.
 
No, they don't have any rights at all. Those are restraints we put on ourselves, nothing to do with the animal. What rights do cows and chickens have, we slaughter them by the thousands for food and other products? Animals are a resource, have been that for millions of years.

Virtually all rights are simply restrains we put on ourselves. They aren't magic.
 
Back
Top Bottom