The Danger of “Animals Are Persons Too”

NO, we will not post the video of the AR propaganda but of course you can find it yourself.

Should Certain Animals Have Some of the Same Legal Rights As People?

Student Opinion - The Learning NetworkStudent Opinion - The Learning Network

Questions about issues in the news for students 13 and older.

Our legal system divides the world into people and everything else. People (and associations of people) have legal rights. Everything else does not. But should animals — or at least certain highly intelligent animals — be given some of the same legal rights as people?

In the Op-Doc “Animals Are Persons Too,” Chris Hegedus and D. A. Pennebaker tell the story of the lawyer Steven Wise and his campaign to expand the legal rights of certain animals with a high level of intelligence:

How does a thing become a person? In December 2013, the lawyer Steven Wise showed the world how, with a little legal jujitsu, an animal can transition from a thing without rights to a person with legal protections. This Op-Doc video follows Mr. Wise on his path to filing the first-ever lawsuits in the United States demanding limited “personhood” rights for certain animals, on behalf of four captive chimpanzees in New York State.

Mr. Wise (who is also the subject of The New York Times Magazine’s cover story this Sunday) has spent more than 30 years developing his strategy for attaining animal personhood rights. After he started his career as a criminal defense lawyer, he was inspired by Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” to dedicate himself to justice for animals. He helped pioneer the study of animal rights law in the 1980s. In 2000, he became the first person to teach the subject at Harvard Law School, as a visiting lecturer. Mr. Wise began developing his animal personhood strategy after struggling with ineffective welfare laws and regulations that fail to keep animals out of abusive environments. Unlike welfare statutes, legal personhood would give some animals irrevocable protections that recognize their critical needs to live in the wild and to not be owned or abused.

The current focus of Mr. Wise’s legal campaign includes chimpanzees, elephants, whales and dolphins — animals whose unusually high level of intelligence has been recognized by scientific research. The body of scientific work on chimpanzee cognition, in particular, is enormous, and scientific testimony is crucial to Mr. Wise’s legal arguments. His team, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), selected as its first plaintiffs four chimps living in New York: Tommy, Kiko, Hercules and Leo. He chose these animals in large part because New York’s common laws are favorable to habeas corpus lawsuits, and because there are great ape sanctuaries that could accommodate them.

This fall, the cases will be likely to go to New York’s intermediate appellate courts. If Mr. Wise wins, he will have successfully broken down the legal wall that separates animals from humans. His plaintiffs, the four chimps, will be deemed legal persons and relocated to outdoor sanctuaries around the United States. In many ways, the lawsuits have already won: They have brought animal personhood to the forefront of the conversation surrounding our society’s relationship with animals.

Students: Read the entire article, then tell us …

— Should certain highly intelligent animals — such as chimpanzees, elephants, whales and dolphins — have some of the same legal rights as people? For example, do chimpanzees have the right not to be kept in a cage? Or orcas the right not to be held in captivity?

— Does our society need to make a complete paradigm shift in the way we think about animals, as Mr. Wise advocates?

Or would granting legal rights to animals open up a hornet’s nest that could eventually do away with zoos, pets or even agriculture? In other words, is it absurd to declare that animals have legal personhood instead of just being either wildlife or private property?

— Do you feel confident that animals have enough legal protections under current law? If not, do you think a better way to protect animals would be to strengthen animal-welfare laws instead of trying to grant them legal personhood?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment below. Please use only your first name. For privacy policy reasons, we will not publish student comments that include a last name.

PD note:  Below we only show  3 AR examples of people, possibly students who have followed the AR indoctrination,  the AR propaganda train, the AR emotional “show abuse” then take the “$$$”,  from the  dumbdowned public:  in other words, the AR propaganda about animals being people, about animals and people, about animal rights, about the 12 Steps of Animal Rights–which you all should know–and if you don’t, make sure to memorize the 12 Step theory of ELIMINATION of the pet trade and the breeding of pets (for people)……..which is why SELLING is supposedly ILLEGAL but “adoption” is just fine and dandy.

People— AR laws are designed against economics and use of animals, period. The Pet trade is equivalent to all the Walmarts combined? About $53 billion give or take a few?

We can almost guarantee— the Courts are not going to give legal personhood to animals.  It will be a cold day in hell if  such nonsense should actually occur………..AND if they do, there should be virtual uproar galore because it will dismantle many common laws and the way courts work in general, impacting humans to boot,  laying precedent groundwork for economic harm, due to foreseeable and even unforeseen circumstances. We think Mr. Wise is a clear and present danger. Our opinion of all AR wingnuts, no matter what degree they have.  Of course, we do not believe in actual animal abuse–but much of “abuse” touted by AR wingnuts is not abuse, but simply making laws which TURN EVERYTHING INTO “ABUSE.”  This is prostitution of the law when a dirty dog=abuse; when misrepresentation is used to conjure up “abuse.”  Owners have rights, and they seldom try to enforce them.  If enough owners DID stand up for themselves, we might get somewhere.

If a child or and human being are unable to perform like an average human do we deny them rights? Do we cage them? Do we enslave them ? or do we make things as humane as possible for them? so how come animals that can perform our tasks just as good as us or maybe better than us be denied? We stand up for our rights and how we ” Think” we should be treated, just because they don’t have a voice does that mean we shouldn’t listen? as if you wouldn’t listen to a child with no voice apply the rules you give to animals first to your self then speak !

(Note: in this comment, “we” is used to represent the human race as a whole.) Should certain animals have the same rights as humans? Yes, but let me explain WHY. Humans, as a general race, have put themselves on a pedestal. Let’s reverse the roles for a minute: let’s say that chimpanzees, or any other animal, take the place/role of humans in the world, and humans take the place of chimpanzees, or that any other animal, in the world. Humans would be outraged if we were treated as poorly as so many animals are. If humans were used for experiments, we would say, “how DARE they do something like this to US? If they’re so curious, why can’t they test these kinds of things on their own kind?” And if we were abused, we would say, “how DARE they hurt ME? Can’t they tell I’m alive and that I have feelings too?” And if humans were used as entertainment, such as in circuses, zoos, SeaWorld, etc., we would say, “How is this entertaining? Why is this crowd laughing and smiling at the things I have been FORCED to do? Don’t they know that if I don’t do as I am told, there is a physical and psychological CONSEQUENCE? Where is my family? Why do I have to sleep in this cold cage? Why can’t I ROAM FREE?”
Many use the excuse, “animals shouldn’t have the same rights as humans because they aren’t as smart as us” or “they can’t do the same things as us.” But who are we to determine what is intelligent and what is unintelligent?

Animals should have the same legal rights as people because there is a reason why people have rights. Some things that happen to animals are truly cruel, and people dont care because its not there species. People have rights because certain things just aren’t right. Animals can’t communicate with humans so they have no voice. It isn’t fair that because animals can’t speak for themselves so it’s only fair to give them the right that we have