Here's the story:

Link



To be debated:

1. Should the great apes be granted limited legal rights, similar to those granted to very young children? Why or why not?

2. Is the resolution by the Balearic Parliament a quirk, or a sign of the future? Will Spain adopt a similar resolution? The rest of Europe? The USA? The world?

3. Should similar rights be granted to other animals? If so, which ones? Cetaceans? Elephants? Others?

1. Should the great apes be granted limited legal rights, similar to those granted to very young children? Why or why not?

No, they should not. They are not humans, they are not children. Fortunately, this law does not do what is being assumed here. Although GAP frames it in that light, the law is really a anti-animal cruelty law along the lines of many other places--including dogs and cats here in the US.

2. Is the resolution by the Balearic Parliament a quirk, or a sign of the future? Will Spain adopt a similar resolution? The rest of Europe? The USA? The world?

It is a quirk in that the apes of this very small island group have been granted protection after a group pushed for such protection. For the record, GAP is a group of animal enthusiasts with a very fringe outlook. Their rhetoric and aims are very similar to what is implied in the first question--that great apes should have human rights.

Their logic--that human DNA varies from that of chimpanzees by only "1.23%" and that we are closer cousins than rats are to mice is ridiculous and un-scientific. It is appealing on an emotional level, however and so rings true to some people.

Looking at their rhetoric gives us a glimpse into the deeper meaning that GAP and other groups advocate. Rights from Wrongs



What part of "omnivore" do these kooks not understand? They advocate us taking on a role that is adverse to all of nature. They want us to become something fundamentally different from every other species on the planet.

3. Should similar rights be granted to other animals? If so, which ones? Cetaceans? Elephants? Others?

Anti-cruelty type protection? Sure. Legal rights akin to human rights? No. Who is to draw the line? Where should it be drawn? Is there some limit of pain that a species must be able to exhibit that puts them in the protected category? Does a penguin's care for its young count? Does a chimpanzee's cannibalism exclude it? Are these animals now responsible for their behavior or do their species' history of captivity justify any behavior they exhibit towards humans?

Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. Animals, almost by definition, cannot have responsibilities. Thus, they cannot have rights (although they can merit protection).

That seems unlikely while bullfighting is a national sport, and where the occasional donkey gets thrown from the top of bell towers as part of religious festivals.



I have no disagreement with this idea. Animal torture and mistreatment are generally illegal in the West *, and provided the definition of necessary* death (*almost - I have no special issue with bull-fighting) exclusively covers killing abundant species for food, euthanasia of sick or injured animals, and humane killing of animals that have become dangerous to people, I don't think we should kill any animals.

None of the great apes are abundant (so despite their consumption as "bush meat", they are excluded there); their rarity means that veterinary treatment of their illnesses is usually worth pursuing way beyond where it would end in euthaniasia for, say, a domestic pet or a farm animal; and despite their often prodigious strength and (in chimpanzees) highly organised hunting skills, they only very rarely pose a risk to people.

So a law that specifically outlaws these types of treatment can be implemented without necessarily granting anything akin to "human rights".



1. Should the great apes be granted limited legal rights, similar to those granted to very young children? Why or why not?

Yes, but not especially because of their sentience or their easy anthropomorphism, but because of their rarity and simple interest. I don't think these "rights" should be exclusively simian, but should extend to all very rare animals e.g. all the big cats, all the bears (except the American black bear, which is doing fine on its own), all the cetaceans, elephants, etc.

2. Is the resolution by the Balearic Parliament a quirk, or a sign of the future? Will Spain adopt a similar resolution? The rest of Europe? The USA? The world?

I think they will, as it becomes clear how endangered such animals are in the wild.

3. Should similar rights be granted to other animals? If so, which ones? Cetaceans? Elephants? Others?

Yes, as I have outlined.

However, I do side with Amlord on the more committed end of the animal rights movement (in my opinion, some of them should be committed).

Each generation of my descendants carries only 50% of the DNA from each parent. So if I go six generations into the future, my descendants carry only 1.5625% of my DNA (assuming no intermarriage between them). Does this mean I have more in common with a chimpanzee alive today than my descendants in, say, 150 years time? Er... nope.

Mind you, the sort of people who say that they would are the sort who are quite happy to plant bombs in the cars of people working at Oxford Life Sciences and send threatening letters to anyone working for the University of Oxford - even those in the Oxford University Press (I went on a few dates with someone that worked there, and she showed me her offices and the security barriers, armed guards, etc. This is a book publisher. Crazy!)

This kind of militant will use any excuse to get their own way. Global warming? Well, since methane is a greenhouse gas, and, we're told, cow farts account for more global warming than the CO2 from the whole of the global transport industry, we should all turn vegan. (Rather than just do research to see if there's a way of stopping them generating so much methane in their bowels - that would still mean farm animals, which are what they are REALLY against.)

I always wonder why some of the most militant vegetarians/vegans own cats. (Though they sometimes pretend that the cats are not theirs, but simply choose to live with them.) Unlike dogs, cats cannot live without meat - or rather, without amino acids which omnivores make in their own bodies, but which true carnivores have to take in their diet. Where do these people think their cat meat comes from? Animals that died of old age, surrounded by their family?

And if we did what they ask, what do they think would happen to all the cattle, sheep, goats and pigs that lie on the land we would need to grow our food crops on? Since they'd be trying to eat them, they would become pests. What do farmers do with pests? Well, they don't let them live out a long and happy life, do they? No, they'd all be slaughtered, and - because we'd all be vegans - the carcasses would all rot or burn. Bet they're last thoughts, even if they had any, wouldn't be "well, I can die happy knowing I won't be eaten".

Oh, and your average vegan these days seems to think that their lifestyle is greener than most meat eaters. Well, it probably is, but if in the future we start paying attention to food miles and trying to source as much as possible locally, and we avoid the genetic modification and agro-chemicals they usually oppose, most vegans in cool temperate parts of the world will find themselves starving each winter. Like Marxists and anarcho-syndicalists, their ideas can only be indulged provided they are forever in a minority.

1. Should the great apes be granted limited legal rights, similar to those granted to very young children? Why or why not?

No--only humans have rights. Rights only exist in a society, and they are the quid pro quo of duties; since animals have no duties, and can have no duties because they cannot comprehend the concept, then they can have no rights. For example, the right to vote is the mirror image of the duty of self-government. The right not to be murdered is the mirror image of the duty not to murder.

Animals do not, indeed can not, play this game.

2. Is the resolution by the Balearic Parliament a quirk, or a sign of the future? Will Spain adopt a similar resolution? The rest of Europe? The USA? The world?

Once you buy into the General Theory of Evolution, as opposed to special evolution, this pattern is only a matter of time. If man is indeed made in the Image of God, then there is not equating animal "rights" with those of humans. Of course, the logic of rights-versus-duties quells this foolishness without getting to the religion/biology questions.

3. Should similar rights be granted to other animals? If so, which ones? Cetaceans? Elephants? Others?

Absolutely not.

It's good you've left yourself a backup, since some of us see the "made in the image of god" thing as myth.

That said, I think we need to preserve the natural order of things, including apes.

Just out of curiosity quick, do you think people should be able to do with animals what they will. There was a man on one of the MSNBC "Lock Up" (the one on Alaska) shows, who was bragging about nuking a cat in a microwave.

If were his cat, did he have the right to cook it? what if the cat belong to his wife or one of his children? Did he still have the microwave option?

Bikerdad made the point that the goverment has NO business even describing humane treatment for animals- because they are property, and by interfereing with something like Dogfighting- that dog fighting is more of a true right than a gay person getting married to the person of thier choice

So, if animals are property- and nothing more- than any law describing thier treatment is an affront to property rights - and a violation of HUMAN rights.

Also- a corporation, a non-living human construct- is given the SAME rights as a citizen in the US- so what is so wrong with granting apes even full human rights- if we are willing, and able, to grant rights to a thing that is no more than words on a paper?

No answers here, just questions!

How does a piece of property merit protection any more than any other piece of property- outside the normal property laws that deal with ownership, and protection from theft and confiscation?


that being said- I do believe that Whales should be given the full citizenship of a human being- sounds radical, but I have personal experiances that lead me to believe that they are as sentient, feeling, logical and "I am" as any human being, and therefore, should have the same protections as humans. Alien to us perhaps- but equal.

The easy one first--if the cat belongs to someone else, he has no more right to destroy it than he has a right to destroy any other property belonging to someone else--which is no right, absent some circumstance like self-defense or prevention of injury.

As to whether the man can nuke his own cat, I would suggest that in a strict sense, he has the right; however, as society has an interest in promoting mental health, and as there is considerable evidence that when people indulge in inhumane tratement of animals they tend to gravitate toward inhumane treatment of humans, then society can easily argue that the torture of animals should be banned to promote the health and welfare of society and the individuals who comprise it. This ban would not be because the cat has some special right, but rather because society has a fundamental interest in promoting the health and welfare of its citizens.

Of course, if the animal were a steer, and the man were killing it to barbecue it, have at it. Of course, most people would want to kill the animal humanely, dress it and prepare it for cooking BEFORE cooking it.

Yes- , hmmm, "welfare"- where have I heard that before? - so you are FOR the nanny state welfare programs based on that can of worms?

Huh- why did this double post? CAn't get it to delete either!

I suggest you do not understand what I am saying.

Under-age drinking laws are in place to protect the welfare of children and adolescents, and everyone's safety. Do you suggest the govt and the society does not have an interest in protecting the welfare of its children and adolescents? Same thing here. This has nothing to do with the modern, socialist welfare state.

Yes- that is precisely the same logic as used for welfare programs- to protect children. You can't get on welfare , or for that matter- medicaid or medicare for basic care- is denied to you if you are over 21 and do not have children.

All welfare and medicaid/social programs are based on the premise "for the good/welfare" of the society.

Every single social program in America is based on that comment of yours.

1. Should the great apes be granted limited legal rights, similar to those granted to very young children? Why or why not?
Yes I think they should. They are our close cousins. It would seem that condoning inhumanity towards apes is incompatible with arguing for humanity between humans. A 2% difference in dna hardly makes them nonhuman or us nonapes however you want to classify the matter.

2. Is the resolution by the Balearic Parliament a quirk, or a sign of the future? Will Spain adopt a similar resolution? The rest of Europe? The USA? The world?
They should, but I guess it would have to evolve from a considerable change in our way of thinking.

3. Should similar rights be granted to other animals? If so, which ones? Cetaceans? Elephants? Others?
Let's deal with our close cousins first and then take it from there.

US law, since the inception of our nation, has recognized that certain people are to be given a special place under the law because they do not have the mental capacity to act for themselves. For example, under an centuries old common law concept, codified in many states, any contract entered into by a minor is voidable as a minor is presumed not to have the mental wherewithal to understand and enter into a contract. I would suggest to you this concept has existed long before the modern social welfare state was conceived--laws about statutory rape, child marriage, abuse of the mentally infirm, etc., many of which have existed either under common law or statute for many years, sometimes centuries, do not have the same origins to which you refer.

The modern welfare state argues that anyone may be regulated as to any aspect of life under a concept of social utilitarianism--the greatest good for the greatest number--which is very dangerous and has very different social underpinnings. Indeed, it tramples all over any notion of individual responsiblity, all notion of regulation based upon moral right and wrong, and can be used to trample over any notion of fundamental rights, which the classical concept I describe above does not.

The regulation of inhumane treatment of animals would arise from a notion that animals themselves are helpless, and they are with regard to humans, and more importantly that humans do not realize the mental harm they may do to themselves and to others whom they influence from pursuing such inhumane activity. Indeed, laws concerning humane treatment of animals are found in the first five books of the Bible, the Pentatuch (aka the Torah), so this is not some silly new concept of social engineering that seeks to socially engineer without relationship to notions of right or wrong. I would suggest that is not the same as a utilitarian concept of pan-social welfare.

All of this said, we have much, much bigger fish to fry than worrying about someone microwaving a cat they own. Of course, the microwave company should not have to buy the man a new microwave oven under warranty after such atypcial and illegal actions ruin his unit.

So you are saying animals are no longer property- but rather- the same status as a child? Are cat's property- or are they children?

Testy one, aren't you?

Property rights under any version of the law I am familiar with are not absolute. One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

You figure it out.

But you haven't answered the question yet there dude- yes, property rights can be complex too- anyone that has bought a house can tell you that- - but that doesn't change the fundamental issue of whether they are property- which, have a set of "rights" if you will - but they are bequethed to the OWNER- whereas, the limitd rights of a child are the child's rights- NOT the parents.

Big difference in the debate here!

So- are cat's property- and to be treated as property under law- or are they limited in nature like a child's?