• 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

Brother AJ

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
560
Reaction score
101
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BBC News - Court in Argentina grants basic rights to orangutan

Rights (Afada) said Sandra was "a person" in the philosophical, not biological, sense.

She was, they argued, in a situation of illegal deprivation of freedom as a "non-human person".

They had filed a "habeas corpus" writ in her favour last November over "the unjustified confinement of an animal with probable cognitive capability".

Afada lawyer Paul Buompadre was quoted as saying by La Nacion newspaper: "This opens the way not only for other Great Apes, but also for other sentient beings which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, circuses, water parks and scientific laboratories."

The court judges had rejected the writ several times before deciding finally that Sandra could be considered to have rights to freedom which needed defending.
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!
 
Last edited:
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.

It's a complicated legality but anyone with a bit of humanity will hope for the best to happen to this animal.
 
It's all fun and games until someone's face gets bitten off.
 
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!

Soon enough they'll be outlawing antibiotics as genocide. All the while, actual unborn humans will have no protection.
 
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!

Could be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Nice going, Argentina. I'll limit it to the judge at this point, but what an idiot. It could be appealed? By who? A monkey?
 
Could be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Nice going, Argentina. I'll limit it to the judge at this point, but what an idiot. It could be appealed? By who? A monkey?
A human infant actually.
 
Yea okay, I'm gonna call fallacy on this one. LOL! Seriously this is one of most hyperbolic things I've ever read!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope


Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Note that it's only a fallacy if one is making an argument based on it. I was merely lamenting, although a bit hyperbolically.

But I can make a valid ad absurdum argument. Why should we grant monkeys human rights, but not, say, flies?
 
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!

When it happens in a country that matters I'll pay attention. I say that as a supporter of cetacean and primate rights.
 
Note that it's only a fallacy if one is making an argument based on it. I was merely lamenting, although a bit hyperbolically.

But I can make a valid ad absurdum argument. Why should we grant monkeys human rights, but not, say, flies?
1. They're apes not monkeys.

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.

When it happens in a country that matters I'll pay attention. I say that as a supporter of cetacean and primate rights.
WTF?! It all matters. It matters to that orangutan. You sound rather elitist if you ask me.
 
A human infant is going to appeal the case? What about cartoon characters? Can they get in on this too? Can Speed Racer sue for a real driver's license?
You ask a ridiculous question, and you'll get a ridiculous answer. I'd love to hear your potentially rational thoughts on why this ruling is so absurd you.
 
1. They're apes not monkeys.

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.


WTF?! It all matters. It matters to that orangutan. You sound rather elitist if you ask me.

1. Ok

2. Semantics

3. Such as?
 
1. They're apes not monkeys.

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.


WTF?! It all matters. It matters to that orangutan. You sound rather elitist if you ask me.

The orangutan should be treated humanely as befitting an intelligent creature. However it doesn't 'care' about the proceedings because it isn't even aware of them or what they mean. I'm not going to pay close attention to any legal ruling coming out of Argentina of all places.
 
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.
 
The orangutan should be treated humanely as befitting an intelligent creature.
Hm. And should unintelligent humans and other animals be treated inhumanely?

However it doesn't 'care' about the proceedings because it isn't even aware of them or what they mean.
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.

I'm not going to pay close attention to any legal ruling coming out of Argentina of all places.
Why?
 
It's all fun and games until someone's face gets bitten off.

... Are companies taking bath salts now?

(Figure out the joke, it's complex, but it's there).
 
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:
2. Semantics
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.

3. Such as?
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.

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

Good. Primates have intelligence that places them well above other animals and it's about time they get basic rights.
 
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; I'm no vegetarian, much less vegan. I love meat.

The highly intelligent ones, though, I'd be a lot more sympathetic towards them.

Good. Primates have intelligence that places them well above other animals and it's about time they get basic rights.
Well it's good to see so much support, but I have to say that this value being placed upon "intelligence" makes me uncomfortable. Even the "less than intelligent" do not deserve what these animals are forced to endure. Do you apply this thinking to human beings as well?

I also hope that we will not suddenly venture down the dark road of utilitarianism and suddenly claim that these animal's rights should be taken away only if they're being tested on in a laboratory.
 
Well it's good to see so much support, but I have to say that this value being placed upon "intelligence" makes me uncomfortable. Even the "less than intelligent" do not deserve what these animals are forced to endure. Do you apply this thinking to human beings as well?

I also hope that we will not suddenly venture down the dark road of utilitarianism and suddenly claim that these animal's rights should be taken away only if they're being tested on in a laboratory.

It's more than just crude intelligence, and I've made the argument supporting a wide range of attributes of primates that place them on a unique tier. If you want I can dig up that post again.

Found it:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...k-appeals-court-hearing-3.html#post1063845633
 
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.


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.


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

2. Ya, it does actually.

3. Flies protect their own well-being as well. And rich seems an excessively vague term.

Sentient: able to perceive or feel things

This clearly includes flies.

Now if you would, please identify a specific difference, and explain why this should grant one rights and not the other.
 
Back
Top Bottom