# Should animals be given "Human rights"?



## heidita

On the Spanish government a bill is being discussed to include "grandes simios", like gorillas, Bonobos etc in the list of animals to be treated in a somewhat equal way to humans, to give them "Human rights". This is called "Proyecto Gran Simio".

From then on an animal can be defended by a human being and will be granted special rights. 


ELMUNDO.ES | AGENCIAS
MADRID.- Los responsables del Proyecto Gran Simio solicitarán hoy a los diputados la adhesión a su proyecto, entre cuyos objetivos destaca "incluir a los antropoides no humanos en una comunidad de iguales, *otorgándoles la protección moral y legal de la que actualmente sólo gozan los seres humanos*". La comparecencia viene avalada por el grupo socialista en el Congreso.

Do you think an animal should have the same or similar rights as a human being? Why only the great apes, if the law is granted? Obviously one of the reasons for this law is the similarity we have to the apes. But aren't we more similar to a certain fly, at least gene wise? Is this a good reason? 
Amnesty International ( in Spain)has shown surprise as there are many human beings who are not granted these rights, others say that it's like asking for "derechos taurinos para los humanos" (Arzobisbo de Pamplona).What is your opinion?

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/04/24/sociedad/1145890969.html

http://www.european-vegetarian.org/evu/spanish/news/news001/greatapes.html


----------



## Just_Wil

It sounds like a joke. I'm not against the rights for the animals, actually, I'm against all kind of violence against animals, but I'm sure this law is just willing to protect those animals and that'd be a good thing, but...I don't think the Spanish government is intending to give them rights to vote, for an example.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Yes. And humans should be given animal rights. And while where at it, lets give plants mineral rights.


----------



## Keikikoka

I'd prefer we finish giving the rest of humans human rights before we start giving them to the animals.


----------



## heidita

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Yes. And humans should be given animal rights. And while where at it, lets give plants mineral rights.


 
Residente, this is what I read this morning on another paper, that while some are fighting for the rights of the great apes not to be locked behind bars, there are several countries (the author mentioned Cuba) where people are locked in other places and haven't got the right to move freely.  He went on asking whether these people were going to get then equal rights to the apes, to move freely, too.


----------



## alisone

I dont know how we'd eat them, then.


----------



## stargazer

I think we should start thinking and doing something along those lines. Billions of animals are killed every day just to become food for people, but lots and lots of food (including meat) end up in garbage cans. So billions of animals suffer - for what? People do not need to eat animals in order to survive.
I also believe that hunting should be done away with, and the same goes for vivisection, and every other kind of torture.


----------



## fenixpollo

Keikikoka said:
			
		

> I'd prefer we finish giving the rest of humans human rights before we start giving them to the animals.


 I agree.  First, we have to agree on what rights constitute "human rights".  The definition varies from culture to culture, and from country to country.  For example, before we can start treating cattle like people, we have to stop treating women like cattle.

Second, if we agree to treat all humans with respect, and we extend this respect to other primates, then we have to extend them to all animals.  And if we extend these rights to all animals, then we have to stop killing them for food and for sport -- just on principle.  The next logical step would be to extend rights to all living things, such as bacteria and plants.

Kind of a slippery slope, huh?


----------



## danielfranco

There has been talk about doing this kind of thing for quite a while. I haven't read the wording of the argument, and I don't know exactly what kinds of provisions they wish to give to the great apes. But from what I remember of some of the arguments in favor in the past, I think one of the issues that motivates the advocates is the fact that, according to _human_ perception, those animals seem able to develop an emotional personality comparable to the emotional develpment of small children.
However, I'm a bit confused about the Spanish government dealing with this issue... I thought that great apes were a bit thin on the ground in Spain, aren't they?
So I don't understand their involvement. I'll try to read up on it and learn some more about it.
Laters.


----------



## MonsieurAquilone

As a nihilist it does not matter what happens for me...but it is good that humans, in my opinion, are starting to realise that they are no better than animals.  Good on the government, then we should turn jails/prisons into zoos for animals to look at those to captive!


----------



## heidita

Daniel, very funny: thin on the ground!!!!

Well, I would say VERY thin on the ground as there are only great apes in Zoos and I suppose this would be the first place they would disappear from. Or can they be kept behind bars having human rights? Well, really there are many men kept behind bars , not being criminals, who have done nothing but express their opinion, not in Spain but in other countries. So, I wonder......

Fenixpollo, I am glad that women are not treated like cattle in Europe and the States, but they are in other countries, where we have many friends on the forum from. So, I have no personal experience with this but this should be one of the first steps taken, I agree.


----------



## Pivra

Some animals should be given human rights. Chemistry testing on animals should be abolished. It is against morality, humanity (towards animals), chickens and pigs and others should be killed in less brutal ways. Big animals with more complex feelings should not be killed in any way.

This is my opinion


----------



## fenixpollo

Pivra said:
			
		

> Big animals with more complex feelings should not be killed in any way.


 How do you decide which animals have feelings?  What is the difference between "simple feelings" and "complex feelings"?  What right do humans have to make these decisions?


----------



## Pivra

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> How do you decide which animals have feelings? What is the difference between "simple feelings" and "complex feelings"? What right do humans have to make these decisions?


 
Like dogs cats cows and other mammals should be treated better. Do you know that cows cry before they are killed? 

What right do we have to make these decisions? What right do we have to kill them?


----------



## cuchuflete

Just to put this in context...there are thousands of definitions of human rights.  As has been said, they vary by culture and locality.  In some states/provinces in my country, a convicted felon looses the right to vote for the remainder of the person's life.  In other states, a convicted felon, after having served a jail sentence, is allowed to vote.

Some members of congress are reported to have lower intelligence than great apes, and serve in government.

I hope the Spanish government passes this law, and then considers extending it to bacalao.  Seriously, it's a nice notion, but has little to do with the more pressing things people in government are elected to do.  Preventing cruelty to animals, just like preventing cruelty to other humans, is a good objective.  I would put more attention and energy into making all humans safe from harm first.  Call me tribal.


----------



## heidita

Pivra said:
			
		

> Like dogs cats cows and other mammals should be treated better. Do you know that cows cry before they are killed?
> 
> What right do we have to make these decisions? What right do we have to kill them?


 
Cows cry before they get killed? I'm never going to eat beef again. What a horrible thing to know...
There you are, sometimes ignorance is a blessing.


----------



## maxiogee

Put it this way… if we accept evolution and go back far enough we would find that the primates we share this planet with share ancestors with us. They are brances of the same family tree - not as closely related as your fifteenth cousin, but related none the less.
The same holds true (but at a much greater remove) for all animals.

What are "Human Rights"?
If they are inalienable rights we acquire by virtue of our belonging to the genus "homo sapiens" then no, we shouldn't give them to animals - probably because they are not ours to 'give', but because they don't meet the qualification requirements. 
Should Irish citizenship be given to people in England? They're very close to us; they're practically neighbours; they look like us; they share many language traits with us. But they aren't us.

Again, what are "Human Rights"?
If they are a charter to govern the relationships which people develop during life so that everyone is treated with a degree of respect and dignity, due to our common humanity then again we shouldn't give them to animals, as they don't qualify.

Again, what are "Human Rights"? Do you mean that we shouldn't kill, mistreat, abuse, enslave, exploit or otherwise profit from our dealings with our fellows? That is a two-way process and we can be absolutely certain that the animals to whom these rights would be given would have no concept of them, and would not honour our "Rights", and would not afford them to each other - even to members of their own species, and sometimes even their own families.

Let us instead consider a new set of rights - ones which say that no animal should be mistreated, should be encaged in a zoo for the amusement of humans, or for study by scientists. Let scientists devote their resources to studying animals in their proper environment. Let us further say that while certain religions would say that Man has dominion over animals, and that many object to that concept, that man can learn much about himself and his relationship with his environment by the close study of animals (and here I include medical testing) and that this is a good thing. If evolution teaches us anything it is that one species must exploit others - in some way - to maintain its existence on the earth. If medical testing helps us maintain ours then again I say it is a good thing. (However, I do not include 'cosmetic' testing. Nothing vital can be learned from smearing beagles with mascara or lipstick in a lab.)

Let us also suggest that no creature - animal, virus or whatever, should be controlled or manipulated by humans so as to be a weapon in our warfare.

But, as has been suggested by others, before we get around to formalising such a set of concepts let us direct our minds more fully towards establishing proper "Human Rights" amongst ourselves.


----------



## GenJen54

> Do you know that cows cry before they are killed?


 
What facts to you have to back this up?  Have their been studies done to prove this?


----------



## danielfranco

I don't know about cows, but once I was visiting a tiny village in the Yucatán peninsula and it was the day of slaughtering the fatted piglet. Well, while the butcher got his stuff together _in another part of the village_ the piglet went apesh*t, squealing and running around, very keenly aware that it was going to be part of the menu that day. The rest of the pigs just hung around and kind of edged out of reach of the berzerker piglet.
This made me wonder if pigs (or "food" animals, in general) have either feelings, or just very sharp instincts.
I still don't know, but I still eat "chicharrones" (pork rinds) every so often without thinking too much of it...
Now, according to some articles I've read, there is definite proof of self-awareness in some apes (especialy the human kind), and other "high" mammals, like whales and dolphins.
Maybe that is a big part of this issue.


----------



## Oche Gruso

How far is this law going to go? Is it going to dip into the lab experiments that these poor creatures are subjected to? I am not one for animal abuse or violence, and lab experiments are one example of that (if you ask me we should put the people that are on death row or sentenced to life imprisionments in the product experiments and what not. At least they would be of use then). 

As far as the animals being put into cages, that should not b happening. Animals were born free and without restraint. We infringe on their right to live when we chain and cage them up.

"Be human.  Animals can cry.
Be human.  It's easy if you try.
Don't think you're wonderful just because
You were not born with a tail and paws.
Be human.  Brutality won't get you a dime.
So be human all the time."


----------



## Oche Gruso

danielfranco said:
			
		

> I don't know about cows, but once I was visiting a tiny village in the Yucatán peninsula and it was the day of slaughtering the fatted piglet. Well, while the butcher got his stuff together _in another part of the village_ the piglet went apesh*t, squealing and running around, very keenly aware that it was going to be part of the menu that day. The rest of the pigs just hung around and kind of edged out of reach of the berzerker piglet.
> This made me wonder if pigs (or "food" animals, in general) have either feelings, or just very sharp instincts.
> I still don't know, but I still eat "chicharrones" (pork rinds) every so often without thinking too much of it...
> Now, according to some articles I've read, there is definite proof of self-awareness in some apes (especialy the human kind), and other "high" mammals, like whales and dolphins.
> Maybe that is a big part of this issue.


 
It has been proven in studies that animals DO have emotions and are aware of their surroundings and what is going on.  The lovely scientists tested that theory out by observing how a sheep reacted just before they shot it at point blank range with a pistol.  Aren't you happy that is where your tax dollars go?


----------



## Pivra

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> What facts to you have to back this up? Have their been studies done to prove this?


 
Well I've been to the place where cows are lined up to be killed before and I saw that some were crying. Tears were coming out of their eyes.


----------



## maxiogee

Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> As far as the animals being put into cages, that should not b happening. Animals were born free and without restraint. We infringe on their right to live when we chain and cage them up.



Aaah now you go too far.
We infringe on rats' right to eat our babies when we build houses.  
Surely our very existence is based on having infringed on the rights of others species.
ALL species infringe on what you would term the "rights" of other species.
*Species of animals don't have "rights". *
"Rights" are things we humans have accorded ourselves. 
"Rights" have been negotiated by humans and are only _generally_ agreed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not universal. How many people in China have ever heard of it? Or in India? 

What Human Rights are accorded to the xxxxxx in yyyyyy (insert your own pet political causes).


----------



## cuchuflete

Behind my house are two fox dens. The foxes come out to eat mice, voles, and the neighbor's chickens. Before sinking teeting into their food, the foxes do not apologize or read anything its rights.

The bats that come to live in my atic in the summer are said to consume thousands of mosquitos each night. This carnivorous behavior doubtlessly offends somebody's notion of rights. I call it nature.

That astonishing egocentrism that drives some humanoid animals to try to impose their value systems on other non-human as well as human creatures is an affront to nature.


----------



## Suane

I agree with those that said that giving animals "human rights" is somewhat illogical term. At first what makes people think that they have right to give and take away the rights of something, or somebody else? I think it is like playing on "gods". People decide what they will make with nature, with animals, with plants...etc. What make them think that they are so superior towards everything? I suppose they think that they can "defeat" everything on the planet with their super brain and intelligence, so they have the right to decide what to do with the planet. Yes, they have intelligence, but what about the senses animals have better developed? Even earthworms can predict earthquakes and people need plenty of devices to know something about catastrophes...Animals do not destroy the planet, yet they are those who suffer instead of people, who even think that they can make servants from them...? People as supposedly intelligent creatures (although the term intelligent is somewhat relative) should respect nature and environment as something that gives them food and place to stay, could observe it and study it, but in natural conditions, without abusing it. 
And there is a BIG difference between people eating and killing animals and other carnivorous animals. Animals killed in nature can normally live, have friends, families, chance to survive, because in nature, the strongest survive, the weakest and older animals are killed mostly. They are all part of eating chain. Even when carnivorous animal dies, other "animals" can feed on it. So what animal is then superior? It is the cycle, so we cannot tell. Carnivorous animals have right to feed on the other animals because they were able to catch them, so much that they need for survival. There is then balance in the ecosystem. Even if some populations arise very much, the wise nature can handle it, only needs some time. But people rise animals in the cages, so they are not able to even know the normal way of life. Animals in captivity cannot have normal families, cannot have friends, life, chance that they would not be killed, because every one will be (that is not fair). They are just stuck in some place. Why would nature make cows be able to live for 20-25 years if they are all predestined to be killed by humans after some couple of years or even if they are young? I think people could eat meat if they are able to catch them themselves and are able to eat it raw. For instance, people are able to eat raw plants and it is tasty. But how many people are really able and like to eat raw meat? If they should kill some animals in nature, most of them will be able to kill only ants, beetles, butterflies, snails or something. If people need to eat chickens, cows, fishes why the nature didn't give them the devices to do so, as lions or wolves have? Many people could argue that people have brains to make up a device to kill them. Maybe, but our brain also makes devices to kill the human individuals or damage environment. And these are not a good decisions and inventions of people, right? Or how much time does it take to turn the device for killing animals against your human brother in angry? The "knowledge" or human brain abilities can be also the temptation to do wrong and bad things. (as many know also from the bible). So how can people decide when they did wrong decisions? When they see animals eating themselves in the cages or disabilities of chickens to walk normally because they needed to quickly gain more weight? So, are we really supposed to eat these animals?
People were created in the nature to cooperate within the environment, but they do not seem to do so. So they are going bad way. 
So, why people as the worst behaving creatures should be able to decide about the rights of the other obedient ones like the gods? Didn't the snake in the early paradise said that humans could be as good as god itself? And wasn't that a bad idea that got people out of the beautiful paradise? People seem to do the same mistake over and over again....it's sad because not only humans will be affected by that...


----------



## heidita

I watch lots of documentaries about animals and the other day I came across one of a buffalo attacking lions to kill their offspring. They were not attacked before by the lions.

Then I have also seen, ( I think it was chimpanzees) attack other chimpanzees just to kill the other one, because it was from a different tribe. Just like we do, over and over.


Suane, Not always animals kill only for feeding. 

But I do not understand where we should put the limit to the human rights, once we start. Are we able to tell which animal feels more, which less? I have two cats and you can believe me, they _do _have real feelings. My older cat almost died of heartache when his even older brother died. 

How can we decide on this mater ?


----------



## Suane

heidita said:
			
		

> Suane, Not always animals kill only for feeding.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say they did. But they MOSTLY kill for feeding. Yes, everybody knows that some apes have "wars"...etc., but they are not so huge and because of hate, they just defend their territory. It is a difference because they only use some primitive "weapons", so they DO NOT damage enviroment on some horrible measures as HUMANS do. Also some "wars" can actually decrease their population, so it could serve as population control. And I also think that we cannot understand everything because we cannot really communicate with animals, we cannot really know, why some animal kill some other animal without any PEOPLE OBVIOUS reason. I once saw on the TV that some lions killed other lion, but nobody can know really why, we only can guess. What if the animal was old, or ill, so they killed it not to suffer? Or maybe it was a member of another group, so they defend themselves? It could be important for the maintaining control in ecosystem. Why do people think that they can understand everything, how can they decide what to do according to THEIR understanding of problem?
> And who told that animals cannot have feelings, and why are you trying to prove that they have, when it is OBVIOUS? Why do people usually think that what they do is normal, that intelligence they have is the intelligent one? It is sick...
Click to expand...


----------



## danielfranco

I believe that all animals have feelings: They feel cold, feel hungry, feel anxious, feel angry, feel annoyed, feel horny, feel oppressed, even feel happy for some fleeting moments in their brief existance.
What I don't believe is that ALL animals have _emotions, _which I prefer to define as a complex and usually strong subjective response (like love or hate). I believe that any "emotion" apparent in some animals is actually the projection of the human observer, who tries to give meaning to the obvious physical response the animal has to a feeling. For example, my kids tell me, "our dog is sad because you didn't say hi to it". I believe the dog feels anxious because I didn't reaffirm its status in our "pack" when I didn't acknowledge it, but not because its mental processes make her feel personally slighted by my indifference.
So the concept of granting "human rights" to the great apes is probably due to observations of their seemingly congruent "emotional" responses and self-awareness.
I think it still a bit of an odd thought, as many other posters have expressed already...


----------



## Oche Gruso

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Aaah now you go too far.
> We infringe on rats' right to eat our babies when we build houses.
> Surely our very existence is based on having infringed on the rights of others species.
> ALL species infringe on what you would term the "rights" of other species.
> *Species of animals don't have "rights". *
> "Rights" are things we humans have accorded ourselves.
> "Rights" have been negotiated by humans and are only _generally_ agreed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not universal. How many people in China have ever heard of it? Or in India?
> 
> What Human Rights are accorded to the xxxxxx in yyyyyy (insert your own pet political causes).


 
"We infringe on rats' right to eat our babies when we build houses. "  First of all, way to hide this.  What is that supposed to mean exactly???  

Okay... Fair enough. Then why don't we take YOU from YOUR home--your family--and stick YOU in a considerably small cage and feed you hot dogs and table scraps while others gawk and laugh at you while trying to poke you with a stick? Doesn't that sound like fun???? You try it for two hours and THEN say whether or not animals have "rights." Whatever you want to call it, one species deserves it just as much as the others.
_______________________________________________________________

As far as who has the right to give and/or take away "rights" for animals, for those of whom read the Bible, if you refer to Genisis, you will see that GOD said that we were to tend to and take care of all the creatures on this planet, not to use them to test out cosmetics, or see what poisons effect a creature the fastes and CERTAINLY NOT to shoot an animal at point-blank range just so we can see how far it's brains will splatter. Attest to that!!!


----------



## maxiogee

Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> "We infringe on rats' right to eat our babies when we build houses. "  First of all, way to hide this.  What is that supposed to mean exactly???




It means exactly what it says.
We feel that, as humans, we have a prior claim on 'rights' over all other animals. Those same animals would accord us no rights if they had the chance.




> Then why don't we take YOU from YOUR home--your family--and stick YOU in a considerably small cage and feed you hot dogs and table scraps while others gawk and laugh at you while trying to poke you with a stick?


I do not, and never have, given any support to the notion of zoos for amusement.
I think that any scientific value they _might_ have had in the past is now gone and that animals are best studied in the wild.




> As far as who has the right to give and/or take away "rights" for animals, for those of whom read the Bible, if you refer to Genisis, you will see that GOD said that we were to tend to and take care of all the creatures on this planet, not to use them to test out cosmetics, or see what poisons effect a creature the fastes and CERTAINLY NOT to shoot an animal at point-blank range just so we can see how far it's brains will splatter. Attest to that!!!



Firstly. I don't hold with holy books. They were all written by humans. 
Second. If you go to your Bible you will see that the God there did not say a word about cosmetic testing, nor pharmaceutical testing, in fact there isn't even any mention of care and tend, but what is said is …



> Genesis, Chapter 1, verse 26
> God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."



You seem to think that I am against the concept of rights for animals.
You may have taken this idea because I scoffed at the notion of Humans giving HUMAN rights to animals, or because I scoffed at the concept that we have any authority to 'give' rights, or because I think that possibly before we go giving rights to other species we should fully assert our own so called rights, and see that each human, everywhere, has their rights maintained.
I don't know what particularly led you to believe that I wouldn't or don't accord rights to animals, but whatever it was you seem to have mis-understood me.

We humans think ourselves the end-point of the evolutionary saga (those who acknowledge evolution. Those who don't go ever further and seem to think we are the purpose of all Creation!) but I would disagree. We are a phase in the process and as such must fit our evolutionary niche as best we can.
Using animals to test medicines is one way of maintaining our place on this earth - against all the biological material out there which would wipe us out in an instant, if it served its purpose to expand and survive. That is what all life is about - surviving long enough to pass on genetic material to another generation. Moulding the environment and using other creatures is one way of doing this and we are not the only species which does it.
So don't claim that a love of animals and an affording of "rights" to them makes you a better person than anyone else, it just shows that you don't understand what's going on all around us - life is, and it involves species eating each other, killing each other (often not for food, but to make "Lebensraum") and copulating frantically in the hope that genetic material survives one more mutation! And we are just one more species. 



> Attest to that!!!



ps
Please explain what "way to hide this" means?


----------



## Oche Gruso

I apologize then if I got the wrong impression.  As far as the experiments and such go, I understand your stand on the matter (it being our way of preserving our place on earth), however, who do you think the medicines and cosmetics and what have you should be tested on:  an animal from the woods or a convict that has a life sentency or better yet is on Death Row?  An innocent creature or one of whom has committed a horrible crime?  a being that is similar to the human race or one that IS the human race?  Technology has come so far within the last five years, let alone the last decade or longer.  Why do we need that kind of experimentation?

One last thing, I looked it up in the Gentile Bible, and you are right, that is what it says, however I seriously doubt that GOD wants us to murder or taunt his creations anymore than he wants us to be at war with one another.


----------



## cuchuflete

I wonder, did YOUR god, in YOUR book, tell any creature about
viruses?  Do they have the right to kill humans?  They certainly appear to have that ability.  I assume that if you believe that YOUR god created them, than the killing of humans by little critters is all part of the approved plan.

Sometimes the death resulting from viral and bacteriological attacks on a human organism involves great and prolonged pain.  Is that cruel? Is it nature at work, allowing for the survival of microbial species?  

From your genesis book, chapter 9...

"
  God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: "Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth.   2 * Dread fear of you shall come upon all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon all the creatures that move about on the ground and all the fishes of the sea; into your power they are delivered.*    3  Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat;"


----------



## maxiogee

Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> I apologize then if I got the wrong impression.  As far as the experiments and such go, I understand your stand on the matter (it being our way of preserving our place on earth), however, who do you think the medicines and cosmetics and what have you should be tested on:  an animal from the woods or a convict that has a life sentency or better yet is on Death Row?  An innocent creature or one of whom has committed a horrible crime?  a being that is similar to the human race or one that IS the human race?  Technology has come so far within the last five years, let alone the last decade or longer.  Why do we need that kind of experimentation?


As animals are not referred to as "who" I take it that I am expected to answer that the convict should be the one the medicines are tested on. (I wouldn't test cosmetics on anything or anyone - let volunteers do it.) You assume that "I" would have convicts on death row. To subject them to any coerced testing would be inhuman. At least let us treat our own species differently from the way we would treat other species.
I do not believe that I have the right to kill anyone, and therefore have to ability to empower my state to kill on my behalf. Those who have committed horrible crimes do not automatically forfeit the right to life, and I would not wish to live in a state where they did. But this is not a discussion on penal policies. 

Do not forget that medicines are tested on humans. Almost all jurisdictions require that all medicines undergo trials (usually double blind trails) before being licenced for sale as medicines. These trials are usually done on healthy volunteers and on people with the illnesses at which the medicine is targetted. 
How would giving medicines to convicts (who are in limited supply and who may not be healthy, or fully able to describe the effects of a medicine to an inquiring doctor) expand the knowledge base?


I cannot answer why we need animal-testing of medicines as I am not medically qualified. However, doctors seem to accept that it is a good thing. Doctors seem to be qualified to make such a judgement.

ps
You haven't answered my query about your phrase "way to hide this" - I truly do not understand it.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> "God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: "Be fertile and multiply and fill the earth.   2 * Dread fear of you shall come upon all the animals of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon all the creatures that move about on the ground and all the fishes of the sea; into your power they are delivered.*    3  Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat;"



Did anyone tell the animals?
They seem to have lost their dread fear.


----------



## cuchuflete

OK, so the biblically inclined accept this--
"Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat;" 
And microscopic creatures eat human flesh, both dead and alive.

The BOOK says people shouldn't eat live animals.  That means it's ok to kill them, but not, apparently, to put lipstick on them.  

I don't use lipstick, and I wouldn't put it on a monkey, for testing or any other reason.  But I would test a medicine on a monkey if I thought it might alleviate great human suffering.
My logic is simple...humans are my immediate family; monkeys are my more distant relatives.  Sometimes one must make difficult choices.  

Don't take from that the wrong assumption that I think humans are better than monkeys.  From the standpoint of
the HIV virus, both are a foodsource.


----------



## Suane

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> OK, so the biblically inclined accept this--
> "Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat;"
> And microscopic creatures eat human flesh, both dead and alive.
> 
> The BOOK says people shouldn't eat live animals. That means it's ok to kill them, but not, apparently, to put lipstick on them.
> 
> I don't use lipstick, and I wouldn't put it on a monkey, for testing or any other reason. But I would test a medicine on a monkey if I thought it might alleviate great human suffering.
> My logic is simple...humans are my immediate family; monkeys are my more distant relatives. Sometimes one must make difficult choices.
> 
> Don't take from that the wrong assumption that I think humans are better than monkeys. From the standpoint of
> the HIV virus, both are a foodsource.


 
It's true that humans are your family...but maybe  you could consider the genetics...a bit more...everyone is genetically different, man and women and different races...not only one animal specie and the other...people in the past assumed that another races could be treated badly, because they were different, or women were treated badly by men because they were different and we can go on...but if you could ask someone in that time, if it was wrong, he/she (most of people) would tell you that it is absolutely normal (unless it is a person, who were treated badly)...but opinions of the society changed after time to better opinions...some people seem to create or claim, while most of the people seem to go along with the stream, because they feared to be different from the others...but it does not necessarily means that what is "normal" in one time , is normal in the reality...


----------



## cuchuflete

Suane,
I agree with what you have written.

If you had the choice of using a hundred monkeys to test a medication that could save thousands of human lives, which end of the trade-off would you take?  Protect the monkeys, or sacrifice the humans?  It is, as I said before, a difficult choice.

In the real world, the choices are usually far less clear, more complicated, and sometimes one's moral code can be severely tormented in trying to reach a decision.  That's good.
It means we are not easily assuming a simplistic notion of right and wrong.  

What is "normal" in a choice between one life form and another?  It ought to be painful to have to make such a choice.


----------



## maxiogee

Suane said:
			
		

> It's true that humans are your family...but maybe  you could consider the genetics...



Neither cuchu nor I said that we would be purposely cruel to any creature. We implied that humans, to us as fellow humans, are more precious than other species.
Nothing much less could be said of most species - they tend to prefer their own kind, but if pressed for some reason they too will kill their own kind to survive.
I'm not sure that closeness would matter much to a lion presented with a choice of household dog or cat as prey.


----------



## Suane

maxiogee said:
			
		

> We feel that, as humans, we have a prior claim on 'rights' over all other animals. Those same animals would accord us no rights if they had the chance.


 
This is highly imposible to determine it in my opinion. The elephant has a chance to step on you or just throw you against the tree, whenever you can go along, but if it sees no reason, it will not do that...that's normal, not doing certain things unless you have a reason to do that...but some humans do/did that because of fun (like coloseum, or modern things like that...or just step on the earthworm without any reason, shoot the deer, because it eats his/her tulips (and that person will not eat that))
Or someone's dog could bite the person, who doesn't want to give him a food that he/she eats, or even kill him/her and eat everything, but the dog would not do that...
And maybe- what is exactly the chance you mean?


----------



## Suane

Has anyone read the book K-PAX? It has quite much and interesting thoughts on this topic...


----------



## danielfranco

Speaking about books, if anyone has read and agreed with the "Manifold" series by Stephen Baxter, where he makes flashy use of a fast and easy interpretation of Brandon Carter's "doomsday argument", then we all can rest easy about animals' rights. Apparently, the human race will be utterly extinct in two hundred and fifty years, tops!


----------



## Oche Gruso

To cuchuflete:
First of all, exactly what did you mean by MY GOD in MY Book???  Are you putting sown my religion or something?  (NOTE:  I am not accusing anyone of anything.  This is just an inquiry so that I know exactly what is going on.)  Second, every creature shall be ours to eat, yes, however, GOD said nothing of torturing them by biologically altering them and probing them in every oraphis.  
 
To maxiogee:
You are a very intelligent individual, and I tip my hat.  As far as the “way to hide this” comment, that’s easy (and embarrassing) to explain.  Because that sentence was so light in colour and I did not notice it until I quoted you, I thought you were trying to be a sneaky son of a gun (or just a plain old ass) and hide it.  That was my sarcastic American way of saying “Nice try, jerk.   If you have something to say, flat out say it and don’t hide it.”


----------



## cuchuflete

Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> To cuchuflete:
> First of all, exactly what did you mean by MY GOD in MY Book??? Are you putting sown my religion or something? (NOTE: I am not accusing anyone of anything. This is just an inquiry so that I know exactly what is going on.) Second, every creature shall be ours to eat, yes, however, GOD said nothing of torturing them by biologically altering them and probing them in every oraphis.


Oche--

No putting down of anybody's religion, but drawing sharp attention to a logical dilemma:

Many posts ago you wrote 





> As far as who has the right to give and/or take away "rights" for animals, for those of whom read the Bible, if you refer to Genisis, you will see that GOD said that


 That's your holy source, perceived through your belief system, and including your own understanding of what "GOD" is. That's perfectly ok for you and those who share your assumptions. There are, however, many other sets of assumptions about what constitutes "God" and which texts are divinely inspired or delivered etc. 
Thus, for a reader who doesn't share your starting point, your
arguments are circular. They come down to "it's true because I said so because it's true because my belief source says so, therefore I accept it as truth. So, of course it's true!" 

Mixing theology and faith together with logical exposition usually works very well when every member of the conversation shares the same theology and faith. Otherwise, it doesn't work at all.

Example: your source for God's word says, and you just reiterated it in your last post, that humans can eat all creatures. Try that with a Hindu, for whom some bovine animals are--based on their understanding of what is divine--strictly off limits. Two valid religious traditions and perceptions may have a direct and obvious conflict.


Let's look at one possible interpretation of the statement in Genesis about man having the right to eat other animals. (One and only one interpretation---there are probably as many interpretations as there are preachers.) Eating an animal for sustenance is ok. Eating the animal requires killing the animal. Killing the animal is apt to cause the animal pain.
Therefore, human survival, which requires food, will cause animals pain. Inflicting pain on the animals is not the intent, but a likely or necessary consequence.

Now shift to disease prevention or cure...also to result in human survival. Applying mascara to a rabbit (personally I find the thought disgusting and offensive...but that's my emotional bias.) may, incidentally, cause the animal pain, while providing a medical remedy that supports human existence. 

We have two "uses" of living things in order that humans may
remain alive. Should we think that eating is a more fit use of animals than disease prevention and cure, just because we generally eat on a daily basis, and only deal with disease when we have a disease?


----------



## Oche Gruso

Touche.  Understood.


----------



## cuchuflete

Heees baaaaaaack:

Oche wrote:  





> Second, every creature shall be ours to eat, yes, however, GOD *said nothing* of torturing them by biologically altering them and probing them in every oraphis.



And, legalistically speaking, if GOD were mute on the subject, why should we choose HIS silence as a prohibition?  Or as permission?  I don't see a logical progression from silence to
a "thou shalt not" any more than to tacit approval.


----------



## scotu

which human rights should we give them? the right to be controlled by a government? the right to be restricted by borders? the right to wear clothes and get a job?  or maybe the right to carry guns and have free access to abortion? Be careful with giving them the right to vote, they may be a majority! then congress could be filled with asses and monkeys.


----------



## cuchuflete

Scotu's post raises a good point. "human rights" is a very ambiguous term, and we throw it around very casually, as if it were intuitively obvious what it means, and as if that meaning were consistent for all readers.

If this thread is really about not causing harm to living creatures, introducing the term "human rights" is not helpful. We might be better off using simpler words, and just arguing about what is needed, needless, or the tradeoffs between what's helpful to one species, while harmful to another. 

Of course the answers will be just as elusive, but creating confusion seems to be a basic human right.


----------



## heidita

Scotu, I wonder what you wanted to say by that?

....congress *could be* filled with assees and monkeys...

Congress *IS * filled with monkeys and asses!


----------



## Oche Gruso

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Heees baaaaaaack:
> 
> And, legalistically speaking, if GOD were mute on the subject, why should we choose HIS silence as a prohibition? Or as permission? I don't see a logical progression from silence to
> a "thou shalt not" any more than to tacit approval.


 
I understand what you are saying, and I also respect (and to a point) agree with you.  However, if you were looking for a "thou shalt not" on the matter, wouldn't the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" apply?  Isn't shooting something for sport or what have you instaed of survival murder?  If not, then would Jack the Ripper be a stand up citizen?  Would he have done anything wrong if that was not the case?

(Yes, I know what I said before about the immates.  To a point I was wrong.  Let me clear my name and just say that I am totally against murdering or sacrificing any living being--scumbag or fluffy creature.  However, there does come a point where I have to sit back and really think about who is more suitable and not so much mre deserving for certain things, including experimentations.)

Does anyone understand where I am going with this, or am I just rambling off and looking like I am a representative from Congress?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Oche,
I'll risk making a total fool of myself, yet again, by trying to find an answer consistent with what I think are your premises.  Please keep in mind that I found neither approval nor prohibition in the quoted passage.  The absence of both
was what I was pointing at.  



			
				Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying, and I also respect (and to a point) agree with you. However, if you were looking for a "thou shalt not" on the matter (I wasn't.), wouldn't the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" apply?(Was the "Thou shalt not kill" stated in regard to humans, or to all life forms?  In other words, are we interpreting to suit the conclusion we should like to reach, rather than being 'strict constructionists, taking the text as written?)  Isn't shooting something for sport or what have you instaed of survival murder? ("Murder" is a term humans have invented to apply to taking human life.  I would not extend it to animals, no matter how repellent I find killing for sport. Anthropomorphism is just another display of human egotism.) If not, then would Jack the Ripper be a stand up citizen? Would he have done anything wrong if that was not the case?(If a rat had eaten Jack the Ripper for sport, rather than for food, would that have been murder?  Are rats capable of murder and sport killing, or are those reserved to humans?)
> 
> (Yes, I know what I said before about the immates. To a point I was wrong. Let me clear my name and just say that I am totally against murdering or sacrificing any living being--scumbag or fluffy creature. However, there does come a point where I have to sit back and really think about who is more suitable and not so much mre deserving for certain things, including experimentations.)
> 
> Does anyone understand where I am going with this (I am guessing that you are looking for a moral justification for prohibiting unnecessary cruelty.  I agree with the aim, but my very limited knowledge of the Bible tells me that it is a good source only if you fashion an interpretation of it that overlooks its essential silence on the topic.  And that still leaves us with the logical problem of defining 'unnecessary'.), or am I just rambling off and looking like I am a representative from Congress?


----------



## Oche Gruso

Okay. I think that I gotcha.  As far as the "thou shalt not kill" commandment goes, I made a typo, and it is infact "Thou shalt not murder."  As far as what it was directed to, I have my own beliefs based on cross referencing, however I am an ameture so I will keep them to myself.  Thank you for trying to help clear my head.


----------



## maxiogee

Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> To maxiogee:
> You are a very intelligent individual, and I tip my hat.  As far as the “way to hide this” comment, that’s easy (and embarrassing) to explain.  Because that sentence was so light in colour and I did not notice it until I quoted you, I thought you were trying to be a sneaky son of a gun (or just a plain old ass) and hide it.  That was my sarcastic American way of saying “Nice try, jerk.   If you have something to say, flat out say it and don’t hide it.”


I was being cheeky.
My comment said nothing I didn't say in paraphrase in plain black text.
My comment was there as an 'afterthought' for those who wished to quote me.
I don't think I'm an ass, but that's probably for others to decide. It's a legal precedent that no-one should be a judge in their own case! 
Sneaky I'll accept and admit to - I'll hide anything I wish to.
If I am a jerk (is that old-fashioned rudeness, or am I not recognising a cordial greeting?), I just hope I really am jerking someone into doing a bit of thinking. It seemed my message found its/a target!


----------



## Vespasian

After having seen videoclips about how raccoons are skinned alive in Chinese fur farms (vulgar, attacking comment deleted by moderator) I want to give every animal human rights.


----------



## wintercrow

That is easy:

animals should be given animal rights.

 think: women need women's rights not men's rights. Women rights seem lesser because  of the innate prejudicen we were raised and the way the laws of many lands are written like, but women rights = power=men's rights ... correct
 ad fortiori
 animal rights are no lesser than human rights... unless you think
 that is  the crux isn't it, What we think. 
 Is that Bible interpretation, isn't it?  ... " to have dominion..."
 See for NAtive americans animal rights is easy because of our religious belief that all in this universe is Sacred because is part odf Creator
But here the cultural bias wedges in and presto " hey that is paganism, pantheism, xyzism, blahblahism.
 I think we need to feed the hungry in our country first and help them rebuild their homes before building the homes of people ...
 have a great day
wintercrow


----------



## lizzeymac

Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> To cuchuflete:
> First of all, exactly what did you mean by MY GOD in MY Book???  Are you putting sown my religion or something?  (NOTE:  I am not accusing anyone of anything.  This is just an inquiry so that I know exactly what is going on.)  Second, every creature shall be ours to eat, yes, however, GOD said nothing of torturing them by biologically altering them and probing them in every oraphis.
> 
> ....



Hi - 
I don't think anyone here is advocating causing pain to animals needlessly. Scientists & doctors believe that there are some questions of safety & efficacy that can only be answered by animals testing.
Many scientist believe that some animals are conscious or aware of themselves at some level.  

You have cited the Bible as your authority, but nothing more current.  I think the modern Catholic Catechism has a well-reasoned position. 
What do you think?


II. Respect for Persons and Their Goods: Respect for the Integrity of Creation (7th Commandment)

2417
God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418
It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.​


----------



## maxiogee

Vespasian said:
			
		

> After having seen videoclips about how raccoons are skinned alive in Chinese fur farms (you xxxxxxxxxxx) I want to give every animal human rights.



Is it purely for their treatment of racoons that you vituperate against the Chinese?
Can I take it then that you don't object to the practice of removing (involuntarily) the organs of living prisioners, as also carried out by the Chinese? Do you do anything to protect/protest the human rights of the prisoners involved?
Or would you only dole out rights willy-nilly and then sit back.

If we give rights to things - people/racoons/the unborn/whatever - have we performed our duty to them, or do we need to actively assert and defend those rights?


----------



## Vespasian

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Is it purely for their treatment of racoons that you vituperate against the Chinese?
> Can I take it then that you don't object to the practice of removing (involuntarily) the organs of living prisioners, as also carried out by the Chinese? Do you do anything to protect/protest the human rights of the prisoners involved?
> Or would you only dole out rights willy-nilly and then sit back.
> 
> If we give rights to things - people/racoons/the unborn/whatever - have we performed our duty to them, or do we need to actively assert and defend those rights?



I didn't know about this practice but it's also disgusting. But when humans are suffering from humans it's a bit different for me. Although it's very hard in China there is always a possibilty to change things. People can organise and defend themselves if they think something is wrong.

And I know that it doesn't make sense to give animals the same rights. This comment was more emotional than anything else. But at least we can boycott products like fur coats. But what can an European citizen do about the suffering of these prisoners? I honestly don't know. Do you?


----------



## felicia

Oche Gruso said:
			
		

> How far is this law going to go? Is it going to dip into the lab experiments that these poor creatures are subjected to? I am not one for animal abuse or violence, and lab experiments are one example of that (if you ask me we should put the people that are on death row or sentenced to life imprisionments in the product experiments and what not. At least they would be of use then).
> 
> As far as the animals being put into cages, that should not b happening. Animals were born free and without restraint. We infringe on their right to live when we chain and cage them up.
> 
> "Be human. Animals can cry.
> Be human. It's easy if you try.
> Don't think you're wonderful just because
> You were not born with a tail and paws.
> Be human. Brutality won't get you a dime.
> So be human all the time."


  Dear me!  What about Spania starting at home with abolishing the bullfights??!!  Animals cannot be given "human rights", this is just a play on words, but we humans can start treating animals with the same respect we expect from humans.


----------



## asm

I see a big difference between providing protection against cruelty and providing "human rights" to animals.
If you provide human rights to animals, the status change is not only for the animal, it is also for us. It took us a long time to differentiate humans from animals; with this change, you want to erase that on behalf of raccoons!!!!
Go to this page (UN) and see what Human Rights you are willing to pass to animals



			
				Vespasian said:
			
		

> After having seen videoclips about how raccoons are skinned alive in Chinese fur farms (vulgar, attacking comment deleted by moderator) I want to give every animal human rights.


----------



## Fernando

heidita said:
			
		

> Scotu, I wonder what you wanted to say by that?
> 
> ....congress *could be* filled with assees and monkeys...
> 
> Congress *IS * filled with monkeys and asses!



I do not need any necessity to insult asses and monkeys.


----------



## medeterian

heidita said:
			
		

> On the Spanish government a bill is being discussed to include "grandes simios", like gorillas, Bonobos etc in the list of animals to be treated in a somewhat equal way to humans, to give them "Human rights". This is called "Proyecto Gran Simio".
> 
> From then on an animal can be defended by a human being and will be granted special rights.



I am surprised reading such a thing. Its totally funny. Can it be published to make a new agenda, to direct attentions on it. What was the last agenda in Spain before the discussion?


----------



## Fernando

The project was not Spanish at the beginning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project

The (stupid) Spanish Parliament resolution is not a bill, but an unbinding resolution and (Laus Deo) is not expected to have any further consequences in the near future.

Sorry if I repeat some post. I did not check it.


----------



## maxiogee

Vespasian said:
			
		

> And I know that it doesn't make sense to give animals the same rights. This comment was more emotional than anything else. But at least we can boycott products like fur coats. But what can an European citizen do about the suffering of these prisoners? I honestly don't know. Do you?



Yes I do. Sign up.


----------



## medeterian

I remember a program about the wild nature. The scientsists were inversitgating how many types are being distinct when we try to prevent one particular types distinction. I cant remember the type of subject but the results were interesting. Many bird types were getting more in number and many insect types become in danger respectively. I wonder if it is right to protect the types against distinction?


----------



## maxiogee

medeterian said:
			
		

> I remember a program about the wild nature. The scientsists were inversitgating how many types are being distinct extinct when we try to prevent one particular types distinction extinction. I cant remember the type of subject but the results were interesting. Many bird types were getting more in number and many insect types become in danger respectively. I wonder if it is right to protect the types against distinction extinction?



I think we need to be vary careful about…
(a) causing the extinction of any species:
… we have shown in the past that we do not understand the very delicate balances which nature has evolved between all the species (both flora and fauna) in any given eco-system.
(b) going out of our way to 'save' a species which might be going extinct through no action of ours:
… if a species no longer has a niche in its eco-system then forcing that system to retain it might well be detrimental
(c) protecting one species at a cost to any other:
… again, because we never truly appreciate the damage we do until after our interference has played out over possibkly several decades.


----------



## danielfranco

Tony's recent meditation has reminded me that I have often wondered about the animal species that would be extinct if not for their usefulness to humans. Like the common dogs, that I think would have had a hard time making it among their wolf-brethren (even if their many races would have arisen without the human intervention of selective breeding). Or chickens, that if we didn't raise and feed (and, yes, eat) over 6,000,000,000 of them *every year* I don't think they'd still be around...


----------



## maxiogee

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Tony's recent meditation has reminded me that I have often wondered about the animal species that would be extinct if not for their usefulness to humans. Like the common dogs, that I think would have had a hard time making it among their wolf-brethren (even if their many races would have arisen without the human intervention of selective breeding). Or chickens, that if we didn't raise and feed (and, yes, eat) over 6,000,000,000 of them *every year* I don't think they'd still be around...



And cattle - what damage to the ozone-layer is being done by the methane-emissions of these inefficient digestors of grass?


----------



## Yuribear

Oh my gosh..... I've been too busy to read this before. Well, let me put on my 2 working hats to contribute to this discussion:

As an International Wildlife Law Attorney, let me remind you that the law is aimed to regulate human behaviour. Humans have rights which immediately implies that they have obligations as well and that they are accountable for their acts. From a legal point of view, you cannot talk about "animals rights" because they are not bounded to any obligation or behaviour. We can talk about legal protection to animals, wildlife, the environment and so forth. The press and wildlife lovers love this term, but obviously they are not lawyers.

HUMANS, which are number one cause of species exctinction and environmental degradation, are the only ones to whom the law can be effectively applied. There are several international agreements (treaties) which regulate human behaviour in order to protect species and our environment, as well as national legislation. In Mexico, for instance, our penal code establishes as a crime punishible with up to 9 years of prison if you capture, kill or harm any sea turtle or marine mammal and a fine that can go up to 3,000 days of minimum wage. So needless to point out that if a shark eats a sea turtle, it will not be prosecuted, nor if a dog eats the sea turtle eggs. However, poachers will have a rough time, because this is just one of the crimes they will be charged with.

Now, as a wildlife conservation activist and educator, it must be said that wildlife conservation and environmental protection does not disagree in any way with that of humans. They complement each other, for humans are also a very important part of our ecosystems. Being part of the food chain, we necessarily need to eat organic matter, it being animals or plants. (I obviously prefer plants). However, there are many things that need to be changed in order to restore a balance in nature and we, the humans, are the ones to be accounted for. Unfortunately we are begining to experience now the effects of our greed and negligence. I hope we will all realize our doing before it gets pretty nasty. 

I hope all of you go and see the new Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth". 

Warm greetings to all!


----------



## maxiogee

Yuribear,
I'm with you on much of what you say.
If one can subscribe to the Gaia theory, then I can well imagine that the earth might well see humans as a disease.
However. We are only here *because* of the major extinctions which happened in the distant past.
I don't think Gaia worries about how species come and go, if the creature which fills a certain niche in a particular ecosystem dies out, something will eventually rise up to fill that niche —> that rising up may take a very long time, and in the meantime there may be a terrible imbalance in the area, but it will settle down eventually - the earth is patient, it has time. We, in our haste and greed do not.
On the abortion thread I posited taking a scan of a pregnacy every minute from conception to birth and laying out the resulting images side by side. Now, let us replace all those foetus images with my maternal ancestors - again going back one step at a time and taking the 'image' at the time of the birth of the next generation. If we 25 years (a usual definition of "a generation" to be the age at birth we find we are covering a span of nearly 10 million years — ten million years is a period of little consequence to Gaia.


----------



## Poetic Device

Quote:
Originally Posted by *heidita*
_On the Spanish government a bill is being discussed to include "grandes simios", like gorillas, Bonobos etc in the list of animals to be treated in a somewhat equal way to humans, to give them "Human rights". This is called "Proyecto Gran Simio".

From then on an animal can be defended by a human being and will be granted special rights. 

_

I am not sure what this means.  How can you give an animal the rights of humans?  What rights exactly are being talked about?  The right to live?  The right to eat?  The right to die?  The right to not be subjected to experiments?  Could someone please help this confused little girl?


----------



## Yuribear

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> Quote:
> I am not sure what this means. How can you give an animal the rights of humans? What rights exactly are being talked about? The right to live? The right to eat? The right to die? The right to not be subjected to experiments? Could someone please help this confused little girl?



Hi Poetic Device,

Most likely what they are talking about is what we call in Mexico, garantías individuales, which means that they are inalienable rights that the State ensures you have all your life. In the US some of these are enthroned in the bill of rights.

I really want to see how are they going to word it because nothing other than humans are subject to the law. Maybe it means that, you as a human will have a right to defend and speak on behalf of wildlife and the environment, to safeguard their wellbeing. Which again means that it is a protection law. 

Heidita, do you have the text or a site where we can go look at it?


----------



## Poetic Device

Oh, okay.  Well if it is what you said, "you as a human will have a right to defend and speak on behalf of wildlife and the environment, to safeguard their wellbeing", then I agree whole heartedly.  Isn't that basic principle in the Book of Genesis somewhere?


----------



## Sallyb36

Keikikoka said:
			
		

> I'd prefer we finish giving the rest of humans human rights before we start giving them to the animals.



 I agree entirely~!


----------



## maxiogee

I have said these things before, but I consider them worth repeating.
A) Humans have no rights other than those accorded them in their particular cultures. 
The United Nations' Universal Declaration on Human Rights is not yet sixty years old and is not yet universally applicable.

B) How can an animal be given Human Rghts? 
To even use the word "Human" implies a desire to give them "equal" rights with humans.
Must I tolerate an assault by malarial mosquitos? Or endure a family of hungry wolves to live near me?

C) The UN UDHR carries in it a recognition that rights carry a reciprocal level of duty to other humans.
Who will tell the animals of their reciprocal duties to us?
Can I expect the neighbourhood cats and dogs to stop crapping all over my garden?

And finally…
D) Do they warrant "Rights" — or, should Human Rights be so restructured as to withdraw our "right" to hurt them?
Three of the UN UDHR state:-

*Article 3.* Everyone has the *right to life*, liberty and security of person.
*Article 4.* No one shall be held in slavery or *servitude*; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
*Article 5.* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, *inhuman* or degrading treatment or punishment.​Now if those Human Rights are extended to animals, bang goes Farming as a way of life and as a way of feeding humanity!


----------



## heidita

This bill was supposed to give human rights only to certain animals, supposingly close to humans themselves, such as big apes. 
Nevertheless, how can that be? 
 I think genetically we are also extremely similar to pigs, as there are advanced studies to clone pigs to serve as as donors of organs. Apparently the heart is the most similar organ (sic). So must we expand the rights to pigs too?
 And let's not talk about flies. Genetically a 61% of human illnesses based on genes can be recognized in the "fruit-fly".


----------



## Poetic Device

Maxi, the farming point was a good and interesting one to bring up.  You could look at it that way.  However, couldn't you also look at it as the animal is working for a living; because at the end of the day the animal's keeper feeds and tends to it.  Something like that is a two-way street.  I don't know.  It was just a thought.  (Please excuse me if I sound like a dork.  I just rolled out of bed not that long ago and am still a bit groggy.)


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> (Please excuse me if I sound like a dork.  I just rolled out of bed not that long ago and am still a bit groggy.)



No dorkiness is detected at this end. But I know the 'groggy' feeling. Sometimes I think I shouldn't be admitted to these fora until I have passed a basic "comprehension" test! 





> However, couldn't you also look at it as the animal is working for a living; because at the end of the day the animal's keeper feeds and tends to it.



In many places humans are imprisoned under conditions which contravene the UN UDHC, they are made to work and are fed(!) and "tended to".





> Something like that is a two-way street.


Somehow you have conjured up images of farmers at markets offering better "working conditions" to their prospective purchases then the farmer up the street


----------



## hohodicestu

Hi,

What a great topic! It’s hard to say pro or con to this question. We know that what the scientists do to the animals is wrong because animals may not have feelings as humans do, but they do feel the pain and suffer from it.  I would love to say that all animals should have the same rights as humans do because they are also part of this planet, but on the other hand, if we don’t use animals to do our researches for medical treatments, a lot of people would suffer from sickness and the death statistic would increase. I don’t know what is going to happen if they approve the laws to protect animals, and what kind of protection they should apply.


----------



## Poetic Device

hohodicestu said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> What a great topic! It’s hard to say pro or con to this question. We know that what the scientists do to the animals is wrong because animals may not have feelings as humans do, but they do feel the pain and suffer from it. I would love to say that all animals should have the same rights as humans do because they are also part of this planet, but on the other hand, if we don’t use animals to do our researches for medical treatments, a lot of people would suffer from sickness and the death statistic would increase. I don’t know what is going to happen if they approve the laws to protect animals, and what kind of protection they should apply.


 
 I do not know too much about this angle of the discussion, but as far as the experiments are concerned (like a new drug or cosmetics), couldn't they use people that are in prison with either a life sentence or are on death row?  I know that there are volunteers for some things.....


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I do not know too much about this angle of the discussion, but as far as the experiments are concerned (like a new drug or cosmetics), couldn't they use people that are in prison with either a life sentence or are on death row?  I know that there are volunteers for some things.....



I always bridle when I hear this argument put forward without anything being said about whether these prisoners are to be allowed to participate voluntarily, or whether they will be coerced into participation.
Why do some people appear to think that because someone is in prison that they have no dignity or that we do not continue to owe them the same rights and considerations that we owe any other person. 
In most jurisdictions, society has passed laws which decree that for certain crimes one should be deprived of one's liberty - nothing else, just loss of liberty.
For some crimes, in some jurisdictions, society has passed laws which decree that one should forfeit one's life. It is generally arranged that this forfeiture be done as humanely as possible.
I do not think involuntary participation in medical experimentation comes under the concept of 'humane'.


----------



## Yuribear

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why do some people appear to think that because someone is in prison that they have no dignity or that we do not continue to owe them the same rights and considerations that we owe any other person.



Hi maxiogee,

You actually hit the spot!!! can you imagine that back in 1764 Cesare Beccaria, an  Italian jurist, wrote    _Dei deliti e delle pene_ (an Essay on Crimes and Punishments) where he states that criminals should be rehabilitated into society. That jails should become places to isolate people with disfunctional behaviour and treat them in order for them to reenter society again. It is an amazing book. Well.... here we are 21st century and we are still treating delincuents as dirt, even murdering those who have murdered or comitted certain crimes. It blows my mind away!!!!

Yes, we still have a lot to do with our own speciesl. However, that does not mean that we should neglect our fellow species inhabiting the planet. What really does not make sense to me is how on earth can you *legally* give rights to an animal??????? 

*Heidita,* do you have the name of the law or any clue that might help me trace it and actually take a look at the proposal?

Greetings from a very very hot California!!


----------



## felicia

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> I do not know too much about this angle of the discussion, but as far as the experiments are concerned (like a new drug or cosmetics), couldn't they use people that are in prison with either a life sentence or are on death row? I know that there are volunteers for some things.....


I get the feeling that Poetic Device's suggestion is to deprive some humans (in prison) of their rights in order to protect animals??  Where would THAT get us?? An organisation for the abolishment  of experiments on/cruelty to prisoners!!!??


----------



## susantash

Hola!
A mi me gustaría saber que opinan los mexicanos y españoles sobre las corridas de toros. Yo lo encuentro Horroroso. ES una brutalidad y me parece totalmente denigrante que un animal tenga que ser sacrificado por DIVERSION!!!!! 
Quizas ya hayan escrito sobre esto pero son demasiadas páginas y realmente no me da el dinero para estar tanto tiempo conectada a internet.
Me gustaría que me dieran su opinion todos los que así lo deseen.


----------



## susantash

HI people!
I've just realized that my previous post might sound  insulting to spanish and mexican people. Please let me tell you that it was never my intention to do so. I just wanted to know your oppinion on the topic since yours are the only countries I know in which this "sport" if you can call it a sport is practiced.
If there is anyone* for* bullfighting I will gladly read and respect your oppinion.


----------



## Yuribear

Hi Susantash,

Well, I personally do not like bull fighting and have always reproved it. Yet it is a very difficult thing to get rid of. I remember my civil law professor was a keen aficionado and we always had long discussions about it. They consider it an art!! I guess executioners felt the same way about their job. 

However, I must say that it is not that widely spread in Mexico like it used to be back in the 50's and 60's. There are more soccer aficionados now-a-days than bull-fight fans.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

And putting on my traje de luz a la moderadora,

Before we get any further into bullfighting, please read through this thread (and pack provisions and camping supplies, because it's a long one).  

The topic has led us down many garden paths  - hence this thread is not the place for a more-than-passing reference.  If you feel you have something new to contribute on the topic, please feel free to open a new thread.


----------



## maxiogee

Bullfighting (about which I have no opinions as it is not part of my country's activites or its culture) is but one aspect of humanity's interactions with animals which includes the following "sports"
Hunting -> people with high-powered weapons shoooting animals for sport, but not for food.
Dog-fighting -> people breeding animals so that gambling may be abetted
Cock-fighting -> ditto
Hare Coursing -> people catching hares so that greyhounds can tear them apart
Circuses -> animals kept in captivity and "trained" for the entertainment of people.
Zoos -> animals caged in confined spaces, outside their natural habitat for the 'enlightenment'/'amusement' of people (Zoos may once have had a scientific justification, but those days are past.).
Safari Parks -> More animals confined outside their natural habitat so that people can stare at them.
Aquaria -> zoos for fish/circuses for whales & dolphins.
Rodeos -> Horses and cattle being used for "entertainment"​So let no-one go "casting stones" at any particular country unless their own is "without sin" 
Hare-coursing is a particularly dreadful "popular sport" in Ireland and it shames us as a nation.


----------



## heidita

YuribearWhat really does not make sense to me is how on earth can you [B said:
			
		

> legally[/b] give rights to an animal???????
> 
> *Heidita,* do you have the name of the law or any clue that might help me trace it and actually take a look at the proposal?
> 
> Greetings from a very very hot California!!


 
I hope not as hot as Spain!


http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2006/04/24/sociedad/1145890969.html

http://www.european-vegetarian.org/evu/spanish/news/news001/greatapes.html

Maxiogee, I never heard about this hare "sport". As disgusting as throwing a living goat out of a church tower, which was done in a Spanish town until two years ago. The goat was caught by that years new soldiers. Apparently not always. It was forbidden two years ago.


----------



## Poetic Device

felicia said:
			
		

> I get the feeling that Poetic Device's suggestion is to deprive some humans (in prison) of their rights in order to protect animals?? Where would THAT get us?? An organisation for the abolishment of experiments on/cruelty to prisoners!!!??


 
OMG!  That is not what I meant at all!  I am so sorry!!!!   Of course I don't want to force anyone to do anything!  What I should have said was offer it to them somehow at an alternative to death or a reduction of sentence or something along those lines.  I am sooooooo sorry!!!!!!! (I wish there was a face that was crying.)


----------



## felicia

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> OMG! That is not what I meant at all! I am so sorry!!!! Of course I don't want to force anyone to do anything! What I should have said was offer it to them somehow at an alternative to death or a reduction of sentence or something along those lines. I am sooooooo sorry!!!!!!! (I wish there was a face that was crying.)


Relax, Poetic Device, I said it was just MY feeling, maybe I misunderstood, don't let me spoil your day!  Although I can agree that some humans should   forfeit  their rights because of their actions, the only "right" that can be legally taken from them is their liberty ( and in some cases - their lives, on which I do not agree.) Rgds, Felicia


----------



## ampurdan

Classifying all animals as separate from human is but a human deed obeying but to a conventional conception. Gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans can talk with us using learned sign language and they show the same inner life that has our children. They love and feel guilty pretty like we do. They are closer to us than they appear when we see them from our world.

As a mattef of fact, in this World we can know, only humans grant human rights to humans. And when humans do not respect them, they do not exist, unless afterwards they are acknowledged (by humans) and the abuse is somehow undone. If we want to grant rights to some of these beings we call animals as though we weren't animals, it's up to us to do it. We are the ones to decide if they deserve the same protection as our children or, in another wording, the ones to answer to the question: why we cannot abuse human but gorilla children?


----------



## Poetic Device

ampurdan said:
			
		

> As a mattef of fact, in this World we can know, only humans grant human rights to humans.


 
I agree. If you think about it and pay attention, the human race is just another species of animal. It is our intelligence that separates us from the rest of the creatures. Who are we to say that all of the other animals are refused certain unalienable rights just because they are not as smart?


----------



## heidita

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> It is our intelligence that separates us from the rest of the creatures. Who are we to say that all of the other animals are refused certain unalienable rights just because they are not as smart?


 
If we reduce the problem to a question of intelligence, soon we will refuse certain rights to the not so fortunate human creatures with low or reduced intelligence by illness or handicap.


----------



## maxiogee

heidita said:
			
		

> If we reduce the problem to a question of intelligence, soon we will…


…argue over who sets the definition of "intelligence".

A few posts back ampurdan wrote:


> Gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans can talk with us


No they cannot. They can communicate, but it is not "talk" and it is unlikely that they ever will talk to us.
I know what ampurdan meant, but even talking cannot be a measure of intelligence.
The chances are that whatever criteria are established to be the benchmarks of intelligence, they will mirror human traits.
For example - think of those animals and fish which can change their colour and/or their patterns, to match their environment - what sort of 'intelligence' is needed to do that? Would humans ever consider that it might be intelligence, or would they see it as purely a biological thing?
As we see more and more species which can learn to use tools does that mean that they are becoming more intelligent?


----------



## Poetic Device

heidita said:
			
		

> If we reduce the problem to a question of intelligence, soon we will refuse certain rights to the not so fortunate human creatures with low or reduced intelligence by illness or handicap.


 
That's my point.  Just because certain beings are not as intelligent that does non mean that we have the right to say that they don't have rights.


----------



## ampurdan

That's the point. It's not a matter of cold intelligence, it's a matter of similarity and feelings. It's a matter of whether we are willing to prevent these beings in a way we won't tolerate with our children.

When a baby says "papa", he or she is talking. When a chimpanzee mother is scolding her son in American Sign Language for chimpanzees and punishing it, it's just communicating...


----------



## Yuribear

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> That's my point. Just because certain beings are not as intelligent that does non mean that we have the right to say that they don't have rights.


Let me put my on my lawyers hat and try to explain to you what this means and it has nothing to do with intelligence but with legal stuff.

The law, as in the set of rules adopted by a community (nation) in order to regulate their interactions and peaceful government, is intrinsically aimed for the humans living in that community. Therefore in this context there is no way that anyone else but humans can be subject to the law, since most of its principles and regulations are obligatory and enforced.

Now, there is also another type of law, known as "natural law" which has a more philosophycal, moral, connotation. Many of these great thoughts have been incorporated as "principles" in legal texts... vid. the bill of rights, or any other similar regulation of your country, and in many international charts, declarations and agreements.

Reading the article which Heidita firts commented about (see her quotes above), I believe that what the people from the PSOE are referring are exactly to these type of "natural law" principles which in international law have already been established back in the 70's in the 21 Principles of the Stockholm Declaration, (see principles 2 and 4) and in many other Wildlife Conventions, such as CITES and Ramsar. The only thing the Spanish government has to do is to incorporate such principles, incorrectly called "*human rights*" by their campaigners, into their legislation.

I believe the confusion, as I see it, arises from the fact that in Spanish some of these principles are also established in the "Declaracíón Universal de Derechos Humanos", but all I can say is that this particular Diputado has little knowledge of the law, international law and how these work.

Legal protection for wildlife exists, and according to international law, they already have the inalienable, imprescriptible and intrinsic rights and these have been incorporated in many countries in several anti cruelty, or other type of protection laws, but do not confuse them with human rights, because that means that you are bound and accountable for your actions, and as I said before, can you put in jail a shark or another predator for eating a cetacean or harassing a sea turtle ( which are protected according to Mexican law)? of course not, but you can surely prosecute the human poacher!!!


----------



## Poetic Device

So, basically with your last paragraph (round about) is that since we know better we can be judged and punished, but with another animal, since they have no concept of our laws, the same cannot be held for them?  Am I right with this?


----------



## Yuribear

No, Poetic Device, do not put anthropocentric ideas in my mind, which I am not saying.... let me quote myself again...



			
				Yuribear said:
			
		

> the law is aimed to regulate human behaviour. Humans have rights which immediately implies that they have obligations as well and that they are accountable for their acts. From a legal point of view, you cannot talk about "animals rights" because they are not bounded to any obligation or behaviour. We can talk about legal protection to animals, wildlife, the environment and so forth. The press and wildlife lovers love this term, but obviously they are not lawyers.
> 
> HUMANS, which are number one cause of species exctinction and environmental degradation, are the only ones to whom the law can be effectively applied. There are several international agreements (treaties) which regulate human behaviour in order to protect species and our environment, as well as national legislation. In Mexico, for instance, our penal code establishes as a crime punishible with up to 9 years of prison if you capture, kill or harm any sea turtle or marine mammal and a fine that can go up to 3,000 days of minimum wage. So needless to point out that if a shark eats a sea turtle, it will not be prosecuted (*that's part of the food chain*), nor if a dog eats the sea turtle eggs. However, poachers will have a rough time, because this is just one of the crimes they will be charged with.
> 
> Now, as a wildlife conservation activist and educator, it must be said that wildlife conservation and environmental protection does not disagree in any way with that of humans. They complement each other, for humans are also a very important part of our ecosystems. Being part of the food chain, we necessarily need to eat organic matter, it being animals or plants. (I obviously prefer plants). However, there are many things that need to be changed in order to restore a balance in nature and we, the humans, are the ones to be accounted for. Unfortunately we are begining to experience now the effects of our greed and negligence. I hope we will all realize our doing before it gets pretty nasty.


----------



## Poetic Device

Oh! Okay. A thousand apologies! I was being a dork again.


----------



## ampurdan

First. We are not talking about sharks or turtles, we are talking about Great Apes. Just because they are not human, they do not fall automatically in the same category.

Second. A Gorilla should not probabily go to jail, not because he or she is not human, but because he or she would fail the penal requisites of "culpability" to be prosecuted, as one of our children.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not "Natural Law", it is positive law (that may have little enforceability in some countries).

I don't think the diputado get mixed up with law, he meant "human rights" because they should have the same basic rights, not the duties.

When the Roman emperors extended their citizenship first to italics, then to some collonies and provinces and finally to all the Empire, that did not mean that they all had to live in Rome, but that they had the same rights a Roman citizen had at the time.


----------



## Yuribear

You are not a dork, and no need to apologize, that's why we are here to share our knowledge and views  ... it is just that the legal system can be quite complicated and it is not easy to understand it if you haven't been studying it or working with it for years and years. That is why people with good intentions, as I am sure many of the people in the House of Representatives or any other legislative body, create a lot of confusion, because they are not necessarily lawyers and do not know how to frame their "good intentions", as what seems to be this case with "human rights to animals".


----------



## Yuribear

ampurdan said:
			
		

> First. We are not talking about sharks or turtles, we are talking about Great Apes. Just because they are not human, they do not fall automatically in the same category.


Well we are not discussing here the specific biological particularities of the species, we are talking about *if animals should be given human rights. *Legally and ecologically, cetaceans, sea turtles and all the primates are endangered species, all included on CITES Appendix I. The IUCN Red Data Books list them all as either threatened or endangered. 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Second. A Gorilla should not probabily go to jail, not because he or she is not human, but because he or she would fail the penal requisites of "culpability" to be prosecuted, as one of our children.


Not probably, a gorilla cannot be prosecuted definitely because he is not subject to and of the law. The law, deals with human behaviour, so that you and me, stop bothering the primates because *WE are subject *to the law. The primates *are object* of the law. Primates or anything else can never have human rights because they are not subject to the law! They cannot be accountable, yet they can be protected as objects of the law.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not "Natural Law", it is positive law (that may have little enforceability in some countries).


Absolutely!! What I've been trying to say is that many of the great thoughts that come from Natural law have been incorporated in Declarations, Charts, etc. as principles that sometimes can be incorporated into enforceable rules. That is why I gave the example of the Stockholm Declaration which specifically deals with the environment (from which many many international wildlife protection treaties and several national laws evolved.)



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> I don't think the diputado get mixed up with law, he meant "human rights" because they should have the same basic rights, not the duties.


Well, I am sure, that he didn't word what he meant correctly, because legally there is no such thing as a human right to an animal as such without liability nor obligations, but there are rights *as a principle* of which the entire planet with all its species can benefit of and *these are not particularly human, but universal.*



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> When the Roman emperors extended their citizenship first to italics, then to some collonies and provinces and finally to all the Empire, that did not mean that they all had to live in Rome, but that they had the same rights a Roman citizen had at the time.



Am I wrong or are we talking about humans here that are subject to the law? Back in roman times human slaves won their status as human beings first before they got their freedom, slaves were considered as *rei* (things). But getting back to the animals, in Roman times, (also rei) the worst massacres of animals occured for the fun of the people at their horrendous arenas. In any case, nowadays legally, animals and plants are considered as living beings and the anthropocentric concept that the world turns around humans is finally evolving into a more holistic notion of: we are all equally important to the planet if life is to continue.

Ampurdan, I am not against the proposal of the Diputado at all, it just that it needs legal rephrasing, because as it stands it cannot stand legally. That is why I am very curious to see the draft.


----------



## GenJen54

*CAUTION:  The link is to an MSNBC article, but contains a slightly graphic photo and graphic descriptions. *

Talk about aggregious violations.   THIS is brutality at its worst, and is absolutely deplorable.  I cried when I started reading it!


----------



## Yuribear

You know Gen, when I was doing the research for my Masters in the UK about wildlife trade, I came across a book called *Homo Tyranicuss *which in short talks about the historic relationship of humans and wildlife through centuries. I cried as if there was no tomorrow. The sad thing is that this is not over yet, as you can see with the brutal clubbing and anihilation of seal pups for the fur trade that still takes place in Canada. Greenpeace has some great footage about it, but it makes your blood boil with repulsion. Wildlife conservation can be extremely frustrating, in particular when the _Homo sapiens_ species is still killing each other back and forth for mere profit and greed.


----------



## ampurdan

Yuribear said:
			
		

> Well we are not discussing here the specific biological particularities of the species, we are talking about *if animals should be given human rights.*


I'm sorry, Yuri, but I thought we were discussing this particular Spanish law, which has nothing to do with cetaceans, pigs, bulls or cows. It's not a matter of preserving the Wildlife.




			
				Yuribear said:
			
		

> Not probably, a gorilla cannot be prosecuted definitely because he is not subject to and of the law. The law, deals with human behaviour, so that you and me, stop bothering the primates because *WE are subject *to the law. The primates *are object* of the law. Primates or anything else can never have human rights because they are not subject to the law! They cannot be accountable, yet they can be protected as objects of the law.


 
That's the point, making great Apes subject of the law. That's why they have chosen the phrasing "human rights". Maybe a gorilla should have you as a lawyer at the court.

Look at this: http://www.proyectogransimio.org/completa.htm


----------



## ampurdan

For those of you who can't read Spanish: http://www.greatapeproject.org/


----------



## ampurdan

Should a chimpanzee have the right to life, individual freedom and the right not to be tortured?


----------



## maxiogee

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Should a chimpanzee have the right to life, individual freedom and the right not to be tortured?



The third one? Definitely!
The other two? Consistent with humans not being unduly disturbed.

In other words, a diseased chimpanzee which could (like a rabid dog) pass on some infection to humans should be put down. And a chimp which was (trained for?) breaking into people's homes and stealing things should have its liberties curtailed.

I hate to seem human-centric, but we are in a position where we need not tolerate certain things. To otherwise avoid infection from the sick chimp, or to avoid being robbed by his cousin, too many people would have to go to great lengths.
As one of the principles for deciding what is 'right' in life is often held to be "the greatest good of the greatest number" then I think that impinging on the life, or liberty, of a chimp is outweighed by the needs of the (human) many.
As usual, of course, this is a 'thin end of the wedge' situation and I can foresee questioners trying to concoct ever-more-intricate questions to get me to the point where I scream "Okay, the chimp can live!" But I don't intend to answer them.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The third one? Definitely!
> The other two? Consistent with humans not being unduly disturbed.
> 
> In other words, a diseased chimpanzee which could (like a rabid dog) pass on some infection to humans should be put down. And a chimp which was (trained for?) breaking into people's homes and stealing things should have its liberties curtailed.
> 
> I hate to seem human-centric, but we are in a position where we need not tolerate certain things. To otherwise avoid infection from the sick chimp, or to avoid being robbed by his cousin, too many people would have to go to great lengths.
> As one of the principles for deciding what is 'right' in life is often held to be "the greatest good of the greatest number" then I think that impinging on the life, or liberty, of a chimp is outweighed by the needs of the (human) many.
> As usual, of course, this is a 'thin end of the wedge' situation and I can foresee questioners trying to concoct ever-more-intricate questions to get me to the point where I scream "Okay, the chimp can live!" But I don't intend to answer them.


 
I fully agree with you, Tony.  And, if I may add one other thing, as far as the ill chimp is concerned, yes he is a danger to our race, but if you think about it he is also a danger to the rest of _his_ kind.  If one chimp gets sick then the rest will as well.  I think that it in the best intentions for everyone to have the sick chimp "go to sleep."  (God, that is such a horrible way to say it...  )


----------



## ampurdan

I think you are missing the point. That's exactly what we would do also with a human being, despite his right to life.


----------



## Poetic Device

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I think you are missing the point. That's exactly what we would do also with a human being, despite his right to life.


  I have never heard of people being killed because of an illness that they have.  If that was the case, I do not think that we would have anymore AIDS victims or things of that nature.


----------



## ampurdan

That's because the danger of death is not so immediate.

What about that famous fourth plane on S-11 which was purportedly shot down to prevent more deaths?


----------



## Poetic Device

ampurdan said:
			
		

> That's because the danger of death is not so immediate.
> 
> What about that famous fourth plane on S-11 which was purportedly shot down to prevent more deaths?


 
I am not that learned in that field.  Is there a site that I can go to to read up on it?


----------



## ampurdan

It was Flight 93. They are planning to make a movie about it. Anyway, it was just an example.


----------



## Poetic Device

Oh, I see what you are talking about now.  Would that really count?  I was talking about a sickness that one person had and that person sacrificing their life.  None of those people were sick.  That is a somewhat similiar, but not appropriate comparison in my opinion.


----------



## ampurdan

Your point is that you would let kill a chimp when there would be a risk of contagion to humans or other chimps that if present in a human you would never even think of doing so, isn't it?


----------



## Yuribear

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Should a chimpanzee have the right to life, individual freedom and the right not to be tortured?



Ampurdan, I know that the ecologists suggestion is being made with the best of their intentions, and what you mention above can still be achieved if primates are object of the law. 

I believe it is not clear to you, nor the ecologists, what *being subject to the law* entails legally, it means you *abide to ALL the legislation* of your place of origin or residence and you cannot claim ignorance of the law not to abide to it. In the instant you make an ape a subject to the law, he is bound to all the legislation which means that he will have to go to jail everytime he gets in a fight or if he beats his primate wife, plus he will have to pay alimony and have his offspring going to school. He will have to pay taxes, work for a living and I can go on indefinetly. In the ultimate case, what these ecologists are trying to do is not to regulate the primate's behaviour (as a subject to the law) but ours in regards to the primates. As I said before, in principle it can be established that "all living beings" (why limit it only to apes) have a right to live, to freedom and anything else you might desire. However, the fact still remains that the behaviour you want to control is the human, not the animal's.

I am sure my colleagues at the Universidad Complutense must be having a ball with this proposal.

I'll be away for 2 weeks on a project so if you don't hear from me it doesn't mean I gave up on the discussion, simply other wildlife recquires my attention. It will be great if you can tell me where I can actually see the actual text of the proposal.

Saludos desde la soleada California!


----------



## ampurdan

Actually, the proposal is not been written yet and, you'll be content, it's not about granting "human rights" to apes, but more close to the kind of protection you demanded.

Anyway, what the Great Ape Project wants is to equalize the juridical status of our children or mentally retarded people with those of the great apes, because their characteriscs are similar.


----------



## Poetic Device

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Your point is that you would let kill a chimp when there would be a risk of contagion to humans or other chimps that if present in a human you would never even think of doing so, isn't it?


 
No, and I would appriciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.  Not only that, but this thread is about giving animals human rights.  If I wanted to talk about capital punishment or what have you I would be on a different thread.


----------



## ampurdan

I did not say a word about capital punishment and I was talking about the Great Apes' equal right to live as humans'. I was just trying to understand what you've said and I'm astonished about your reaction to it, because I don't see anything rude either on my last post nor in my previous ones. If there is, it was far from my intentions.

I thought you said we and chimpanzees must not have equal rights because a chimp must be put down in some circumstances in which a human being wouldn't have to be. Maybe this is not your opinion, well, it doesn't matter because it might be someone's, and I think that the chimpanzee should be treated with the same respect we treat our children. Nothing more.


----------



## heidita

ampurdan said:
			
		

> the Great Apes' equal right to live as humans'.


 
That is to say that they must obey the humans' laws. As Yuribear pointed out. 


> I think that the chimpanzee should be treated with the same respect we treat our children. Nothing more.


 
I really think you are going to far. I must personally say that I treat my cats better than many parents treat their children, but to treat any animal just like your children, that's really far fetched.


----------



## Poetic Device

This is verbatim what you said:


			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Your point is that you would let kill a chimp when there would be a risk of contagion to humans or other chimps that if present in a human you would never even think of doing so, isn't it?


 
This is how I took it:
"Your point is that you would screw the chimp and kill it but if it was a human you would not kill them."

That is not at all what I mean, and that is what I took offense to.  Let me clarify so that there is no more confusion.  If there was an animal, be it anything from a worm to a shark to a gorilla, and it was incredibly sick and there was nothing that we could do for it, then that is when I would say to ......  you know.....

As far a it being another human, if there was absolutely no way that anything could be done for them, I would say that unfortunately the same rule applies.  

The only reason why I would think of anything like that is because of this:  If you are in terrible pain or you are violently ill and there is no sign of a cure, would you want to keep living, knowing that you were in brutal pain and causing everyone around you to suffer with you?

I don't know.  Maybe I am thinking along the wrong lines.


----------



## ampurdan

Heidita:

I was not saying that I would treat a chimpanze, if it had nothing to do with me, as I would treat my particular children. I'm just saying that we as a society, should treat chimpanzes as little humans that do not understand perfectly what is good or wrong in our society.


----------



## ampurdan

Poetic Device said:
			
		

> That is not at all what I mean, and that is what I took offense to. Let me clarify so that there is no more confusion. If there was an animal, be it anything from a worm to a shark to a gorilla, and it was incredibly sick and there was nothing that we could do for it, then that is when I would say to ...... you know.....


 
I agree, but then you're saying that humans and animals have the same rights, aren't you? (I don't want to put words on your mouth, just asking).


----------



## Poetic Device

That is what I am saying.  We are all animals.  The only difference is our intelligence.  Evenk if i am wrongf we have an obligation tro do wats best for then


----------



## Yuribear

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Actually, the proposal is not been written yet and, you'll be content, it's not about granting "human rights" to apes, but more close to the kind of protection you demanded.
> 
> Anyway, what the Great Ape Project wants *is to equalize the juridical status of our children or mentally retarded people* with those of the great apes, because their characteriscs are similar.


Just before I leave, let me tell you that the subjects of the law you mention above are legally in a state of interdiction, which means that because they cannot be accountable or responsible of their acts they are no longer subject to the law but are protected by the law (as objects to the law).

See my point??? Nobody can be partially subject to the law. That is not how it works. Either you are or you are not accountable, but that doesn't mean you cannot be protected by the law and taken care of by the law, as in the case of mentally retarded or other type of disabilities that exempt people from being subject to the law. Therefore, you cannot talk about "human rights" to animals simply because they will never be accountable for their acts.

I have to go now!!! tell the ecologists to find themselves a good environmental lawyer. Obviously they need one!! I'll be happy to help when I return...


----------



## ampurdan

Yuri, I've seen your point of view. 

Children and mentally retarded people are human. They have the rights all humans have. They cannot exercise their rights by themselves, but other people can represent them. The same could work for chimpanzees and gorillas.


----------



## Poetic Device

Why is that logic limited to cimps and gorillas?  Why can't that go for all animals?  You know, a dolphin is just as intelligent...


----------



## ampurdan

Poetic Device said:


> Why is that logic limited to cimps and gorillas? Why can't that go for all animals? You know, a dolphin is just as intelligent...


 
Are they? I really don't know about them, perhaps we should include them too. It would help making up my mind if I saw dolphins recognizing the pictures in a magazine or themselves in a mirror, or painting, or asking about their own death...


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Poetic Device said:


> Why is that logic limited to cimps and gorillas? Why can't that go for all animals?  You know, a dolphin is just as intelligent...



Simply because they are primates just like us and a dolphin is not.


----------



## Tsoman

If we give animals human rights, then how will we eat them?


----------



## cuchuflete

Corollary question: If we give animals human rights, will they be denied their instinctual urges to eat us?


----------



## Poetic Device

ampurdan said:


> Are they? I really don't know about them, perhaps we should include them too. It would help making up my mind if I saw dolphins recognizing the pictures in a magazine or themselves in a mirror, or painting, or asking about their own death...


 

That was a bit rude...  Just in case you decide that you want to look at something that will educate you, here are a few sites that I found--past and present--that help in the matter of dolphin intelligence.

http://www.tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/smart.htmlhttp://www.tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/smart.htmlhttp://www.tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/smart.html
http://www.currybean.i8.com/custom2.html
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dolphins.html



> Simply because they are primates just like us and a dolphin is not.


Please tell me that you were not serious with that one....


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Well, Poetic Device, I suppose you were just being sarcastic with that one, which I usually screw up with getting. Can you please clarify that?

Do you say dolphins should be given "Great Apes Rights" just because they are intelligent animals?

By the way, I don't get why the question is "Should animals be given "Human rights?", they don't say all animals, they say great apes, which makes a lot sense.


----------



## Poetic Device

COMMENT:


> I don't get why the question is "Should animals be given "Human rights?"...


 
ANSWER/REBUTTLE:


heidita said:


> Do you think an animal should have the same or similar rights as a human being? Why only the great apes, if the law is granted? Obviously one of the reasons for this law is the similarity we have to the apes.


 
COMMENT:


> they don't say all animals, they say great apes, which makes a lot sense.


 
ANSWER/REBUTTLE:


> But aren't we more similar to a certain fly, at least gene wise? Is this a good reason?


 
The reason that I brought up the dolphins was because I was trying to prove a point.  Who are you (and the same goes to/with anyone else) to say that an animal does not deserve certain rights because they do not appear to be the same as us?  This kind of prejudice reminds me of an antiqued, yet similar controversey.................


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Poetic Device said:


> The reason that I brought up the dolphins was because I was trying to prove a point.  Who are you (and the same goes to/with anyone else) to say that an animal does not deserve certain rights because they do not appear to be the same as us?


I say all animals deserve certain rights as well. My point is clear: similar animals deserve similar rights. We're evolutionary more linked to chimpes, gorillas etc. than dolphins, so dolphins should get the certain rights whatever they deserve, but great apes should be given Great Apes Rights. It's simple as that.


----------



## heidita

> A new study bolsters the idea that chimps came up with the tools themselves. Researchers working in Africa's Côte D'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) have discovered stone hammers made 4300 years ago that appear to be the handiwork of chimpanzees, not humans. The ancient age of the tools shows that they were made by chimpanzees because "we know this was happening when no farmers were around-


 
I read this in the papers today and checked it on the web. Does this change anything? It is proven now that animals even have always* made tools (not only use tools)*, a privilege thought of only for humans.

Does this make , at least these animals more "equal " to humans? Does this concept change anything in your view?


----------



## cuchuflete

If animals should be given Human Rights, these should be given fully, and without petty reservations.
Partial discrimination would not be consistent with the lofty notion of Human Rights.

Therefore, animals should have the right to wear shirts and shoes when entering commercial establishments.
Animals should have the right to rent homes, even in the most exclusive neighborhoods.
Animals should have the right to use public toilettes. 
Animals should have the right to vote.
Animals should have the right to be elected to public office.
Animals should have the right to borrow books from libraries.


----------



## Jago

And I thought this thread was dead.



cuchuflete said:


> If animals should be given Human Rights, these should be given fully, and without petty reservations.
> Partial discrimination would not be consistent with the lofty notion of Human Rights.
> 
> Therefore, (...)
> Animals should have the right to borrow books from libraries.


 
Not necessarily so. Human cubs have no voting rights, convicts have no right of movement or no right to live, males (in my country, until recently at least) have no right to take a paid yearly paternal leave, filthy beggars have no right of entry into posh shops, etc. With these precedents, while projecting human legal situation onto animals, we can freely choose which human rights animals can be given, and which not. To each his own. 

This being said... with all our democratic rights, we can only pray and hope that "we" will choose to limit the scope of rights granted to a reasonable extent. Given what governments are able to do with money squeezed from us, I am not overly optimistic. The very fact that the Spanish government is so deeply concerned with the well-being of apes speaks for itself. And they may as well succeed, and even survive the next election, what with the popular support to such a humane initiative, and limited attention span of electorates.

On the other hand... Imagine we give animals exactly the same rights as humans have. They are God's creatures just like we are, innit. Then promptly most of them end up under lock and key, problem solved, humanely, and legally. No more trouble with flies stealing sugar, no daily walking the dogs. No gnat will get away with buzzing over your head just when you try to get some well-deserved sleep (trespassing, breach of privacy). No more owls hooting ominously in the dead of night (disorderly behaviour). You just call the police, no sweat. No smuggling foreign diseases by birds. And if a suicidal duck brings down an Airbus, then we have war on avian terror.

For those concerned about their daily hamburgers - I bet that in their new legal situation enough animals will volunteer to pay their tax obligations by donating their bodies to the food industry. Tax collectors will see to it, no worries.


I must admit that I treat this post as an excercise in English rather, than anything else. The topic itself seems quite ridiculous - and of no importance whatsoever, so any opinion posted is pretty harmless. I can't say I haven't benefited from it, though. My gain is, that I can clearly see now that these forums are swarming with witty, smart, enthusiastic people. It is a pleasure and honour to be admitted here. Even if it just needs to make up a nick and a password.

With regards,
Jago


----------



## maxiogee

Well I bags not be the one who tells the lions and tigers - and while I'm at it there's more than a few bacteria I'd like to avoid.


----------



## fenixpollo

Some suggestions for your "exercise in English", Jago: 





Jago said:


> Not necessarily so. Human cubs have no voting rights, convicts have no right of movement or no right to live, males (in my country, until recently at least) have no right to take a paid yearly paternal leave, filthy beggars have no right of entry into posh shops, etc. With these precedents, while projecting human legal situation onto animals, we can freely choose which human rights animals can be given, and which not. To each his own.
> 
> This being said... with all our democratic rights, we can only pray and hope that "we" will choose to limit the scope of rights granted to a reasonable extent. Given what governments are able to do with money squeezed from us, I am not overly optimistic. The very fact that the Spanish government is so deeply concerned with the well-being of apes speaks for itself. And they may as well succeed, and even survive the next election, what with the popular support *of* such a humane initiative, and limited attention span of *the electorate*.
> 
> On the other hand... Imagine we give animals exactly the same rights as humans have. They are God's creatures just like we are, innit. Then promptly most of them end up under lock and key, problem solved, humanely, and legally. No more trouble with flies stealing sugar, no daily walking the dogs. No gnat will get away with buzzing over your head just when you try to get some well-deserved sleep (trespassing, breach of privacy). No more owls hooting ominously in the dead of night (disorderly behaviour). You just call the police, no sweat. No smuggling foreign diseases by birds. And if a suicidal duck brings down an Airbus, then we have war on avian terror.
> 
> For those concerned about their daily hamburgers - I bet that in their new legal situation enough animals will volunteer to pay their tax obligations by donating their bodies to the food industry. Tax collectors will see to it, no worries.
> 
> I must admit that I treat this post as an excercise in English rather, than anything else. The topic itself seems quite ridiculous - and of no importance whatsoever, so any opinion posted is pretty harmless. I can't say I haven't benefited from it, though. My gain is, that I can clearly see now that these forums are swarming with witty, smart, enthusiastic people. It is a pleasure and honour to be admitted here. Even if it just *requires making* up a nick and a password.


 Your logic is fuzzy. Just because men are not yet granted their paternal leave rights in some places, does not mean that no males should have that right. Just because some people are denied rights, does not mean that they are not valid rights. And the other examples you mention -- babies and convicts -- are two special cases. Babies are humans who have the right to vote... when they are able; and convicts are humans who have made a choice to give up their rights in society by committing crimes against that society.  If animals should be granted or denied rights, it wouldn't be for the reasons that you cite.


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:


> Just because men are not yet granted their paternal leave rights in some places, does not mean that no males should have that right.


 
As the concept of paternity leave is a new one, and as employers grant it to their male employees - I wonder if it actually is a "right".





> Just because some people are denied rights, does not mean that they are not valid rights.


I can grant someone the "right" to pick flowers from my garden. But another person cannot complain that they are being denied "their rights" if I run them off on sight.


----------



## TRG

Animals already enjoy most human rights such as freedom to speak, freedom of the press, freedom of association (very important), freedom of religion, etc. Now it is true that they are often denied these rights, as are many human beings, so there is really nothing to debate here.


----------



## cuchuflete

Last time I reviewed the case and statute law, there were no restrictions on the rights of animals to pair with mates of the sexual preference of their choice.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Last time I reviewed the case and statute law, there were no restrictions on the rights of animals to pair with mates of the sexual preference of their choice.


 
Exactly, it's not bestiality if you're a beast.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> Exactly, it's not bestiality if you're a beast.



Wrong - surely it's always bestiality if you're a beast?
==========
Who is going to volunteer to do the lenghty and protracted negotiations which will be required for this oh-so-generous endowment which we humans are going to gift to the animals. (Dr. Doolittle where are you when we allegedly need you?)

I only ask because I imagine that there might well be a few humans who would prefer to see their human rights fully vindicated before animals were arbitrarily granted 'rights' - which would surely lead to the ludicrous situation of some humans taking others to court for the denial of rights to some animals while many humans were being denied their asserted rights by whole nations.


----------



## cuchuflete

Should animals have the right to wear natural animal-hide attire to protests against the wearing of faux fur garments that may not really be false?   

Should hens be paid overtime for laying eggs on weekends?

If a chicken crosses the road, other than at an approved pedestrian crosswalk, should it have the
right to get to the other side?


----------



## susantash

I thnk we shouldn't be discussing wether or not giving human rights to animals but treating them in a *humane* way, guaranteeing their welfare, whatever laws are (created?) for this purpose.
I tyotally agree with you, Cuchu. I also think it's absurd to give *animals* *human *rights. In any case we should be granting them Animal rights. So it's just a matter of substituting the word *human* for *humane.*


----------



## jonquiliser

hello all, I haven't read through all the thread yet, but I am glad there's a discussion about these important issues. from what i've gathered from the posts here and there I read, there seems to be a few common thoughts I'd like to comment on. 

First, there is the issue of 'if animals feel', 'if we can know that', 'how they feel (are they self-conscious? or only conscious? do they have emotions or only sensations?) etc. I believe there are some fundamental misunderstandings and confusions here. and what I say is not limited to animals, the very same issues often seem to crop up in discussion about human emotional life. I believe these things - if and how someone feels - aren't things that can be scientifically verified. And this does not mean that I think we can only ever *guess*. On the contrary, the scientific investigations are dependant on our understanding of such things as fear, pain etc. That is, for someone to be able to establish which neural activity (say) corresponds with feelings of pain or fear, has first to establish whether the one to be tested _feels_ pain or fear. If the neural activity (or other bodily processes) were the only source, the reasoning would be empty, circular. But I don't doubt the fear or pain or whatnot in either humans or animals - the 'criteria', if you wish, are not neural activity but intelligibility: what sense can we make of talking about sensations and emotions in others? That depends on the context, and the reactions, on teh one hand (for example, fleeing from something can be understood as fear when there is something threatening around - this in turn means that often one has to understand something of the person's/animal's life and way of life to know what reactions mean). On the other hand, there is the issue of what is an appropriate reaction to the other person/animal in fear or pain etc. I can try to calm someone in fear, for example. These are the important dimensions of understanding the lives of others, I believe, not some speculative discourse about 'self-awareness' etc (usually the concepts aren't even clear, they are just philosophical inventions). 

The other point, and the important one I wanted to make, is that I am slightly sceptical of this rights thing, and not because animals are in focus, but because the whole rights idea in itself is very problematic. It seems to make moral issues a quasi-legal matter, and thus not moral at all - if someone behaves shittly towards me, what is it to say 'I have a *right* not to be treated like that'? It seems like a mediate relation, always with a necessity of a big brother behind, to take over the difficult stuff. We can just rely on laws and there!, problem solved. But the real moral problems are precisely not resolved by laws, creating and implementing laws. Laws (and rights) may be useful in a limited sense, of society (but even then it has to be recognised that much of present-day occidental society is consumed and drowned in law...). Laws are inevitably contradictory, coarse, indefinite. 

I am strongly of the opinion that what is done to animals is among the greatest atrocities, but I don't believe the animal rights discourse is the one to follow. It tends to, like does a human rights discourse often, iron out the horror of what we do to others, and instead formulate it something in the line of 'not following a law'. There's a world of difference between the two.


----------



## Seana

Today I saw this vidio in the Internet. China's Zoos: 'Asylums For Animals'
I cannot watch this film until its end.This film break my heart. 
I have never supposed any low could exist that allows for a such barbaric behaviour towards the animals. 
http://skynews6.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/05/zoo_horror_live.html



Could you tell me how it can be possible to organize such a cruel family entertainment. 
How much all these animals suffer... this bear pulling heavy objects all days... How can it be possible to raise children in this way. Whom they will be in the future time and what sort of sensitivity they will have. 
Where is the Chinese authorities?

Let's do something. Why animal rights law organizations don't protest?

China is the host of the olympics game, they want to show the power of their's organization. Let them show us also civilised face in treating animals.


----------



## perfavore

I don't know everything that has already been said but I have not gone to any zoo, aquarium or any place where they encage/enclose animals. They have all the right to be free just like us.


----------



## Forero

I do think it is most important to grant human rights to humans, including the right to live in a humane society.  Cruelty to animals is cruelty, not because animals must needs have rights, but because cruelty is not good for the person who uses it, or for anyone else.

Even those of us who eat certain lower animals for food object to maltreatment of pets and unchecked cruelty at the slaughterhouse.  Witness kosher laws and Temple Grandin's work with slaughterhouses.


----------



## Kajjo

Animals need animal rights, humans need human right. Nothing more, nothing less.

Predator animals just do not care whether their prey suffers. That is nature, not cruelty. 

Kajjo


----------



## sinclair001

After you see the images of the chimpanzees lying down in cages, and locked for their entire life, one can think the propposal is not farfetched.


----------



## cuchuflete

After seeing images of animals in cages, or after seeing animals in cages, I worry about the values and behavior of the people who put them in cages.  

After reading about what's going on in Darfur, the notion of legislating so-called "human rights" for non-humans
seems more than a little farfetched.  When humans enjoy human rights, then perhaps we can impose our egocentric notions on other species.


----------



## alexacohen

Yep.
Only trouble being that human rights are as twisted as animal rights were twisted in Animal Farm.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Having just returned from Spain it is rather ironic that the Spanish government should be the one to bring this bill up. 

Having watched the disgusting and sickening treatment of bulls in bullfighting rings over there, I wonder will the government be as quick to advocate an end to this blood sport?


----------



## Yuribear

cuchuflete said:


> After seeing images of animals in cages, or after seeing animals in cages, I worry about the values and behavior of the people who put them in cages.
> 
> After reading about what's going on in Darfur, the notion of legislating so-called "human rights" for non-humans
> seems more than a little farfetched. When humans enjoy human rights, then perhaps we can impose our egocentric notions on other species.



well Cuchu.... as Standing Bear used to say...

“The old lakota was wise. He knew that man's heart away from nature becomes hard; he knew that lack of respect for growing, living things soon led to lack of respect for humans too. So he kept his youth close to its softening influence." 
            — Standing Bear, Oglala Lakota


----------



## alfmartinez

*Any life being that has an intellect aproximately the one of a human being has the right to vote*

unfortunately  the monkeys doesn't have. the most intelligent "gran simio" has the intellect of a 4yo child. does a 4yo child have the right to vote?

saludos

pd: be coherent with this topic


----------



## alexacohen

alfmartinez said:


> *Any life being that has an intellect aproximately the one of a human being has the right to vote*
> 
> unfortunately  the monkeys doesn't have. the most intelligent "gran simio" has the intellect of a 4yo child. does a 4yo child have the right to vote?
> 
> saludos
> 
> pd: be coherent with this topic


 
Sorry.
I don't see your point.


----------



## alfmartinez

my point is: some people here think that give rights to an animal is giving them the right to vote

for me, an intelligent animal must have aproximately the same rights as a baby or child

saludos


----------



## argentina84

Keikikoka said:


> I'd prefer we finish giving the rest of humans human rights before we start giving them to the animals.[/quot
> 
> That law has to be a joke....and I aggre with Keikikoka....first of all, all humans have to live as such..and then we can care about the animals with a clean conscience.


----------

