Human rights for apes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
Apes and humans have common ancestors but should they have the same rights? An international movement to give them “personhood” is gathering pace.

What would Aristotle make of it? More than 2,000 years after the Greek philosopher declared Mother Nature had made all animals for the sake of man, there are moves to put the relationship on a more equal footing.
Judges in Austria are considering whether a British woman, Paula Stibbe, should become legal guardian of a chimpanzee called Hiasl which was abducted from its family tribe in West Africa 25 years ago. The animal sanctuary where he has lived is about to close and to stop him being sold to a zoo, Ms Stibbe hopes that she can persuade the court he deserves the same protection as a child.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6505691.stm
 
Should apes have human rights?

NO - they are not human. Period.

Next question…

~Liza
 
Good Lord no! An ape doesn’t have to be declared a human being to be treated humanely. :rolleyes:

Besides, if we start treating them as human beings they will be burdened with the same so-called “rights” as human beings, such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, etc. Let them be apes, for crying out loud–plain animals, and so remain innocent of the sins men would impose on them.
 
Well, they are more intelligent than some humans I know :rolleyes:

But the answer is no.
 
Has anyone else picked up on the irony of discussing if apes should be given human rights – in a society where even unborn humans aren’t given the most basic of human rights?
 
No, they should not.

There actually IS a trend, primarily in Europe (for the moment) to grant apes human rights. This is actually part of a larger campaign which denies that humans are better than animals, and which also denies that humans are in any way unique in God’s creation.

The people pushing this agenda would have us believe that humans are animals, an accident of evolution and not a work of the Creator. In fact, in their view there is no God.

They deny God because then there are no such pesky things as moral laws to limit our desires and restrict our “freedom.”

And they will tell you that there is no such thing as “human dignity” endowed to us by God merely because we are human. Their “human dignity” is endowed by the State based on who you are and what you can do (for the state - or for them). If you are less than they, then you must sacrifice for them - up to and including your life. If you are less than they, you become a “useless eater”, as the Nazis called them.

Beware this group and others like them.
 
No. They should have significant legal protections, but that’s not the same thing as human rights.

Incidentally, as with so many other things, the fact that some extremists try to change the definition of something shouldn’t detract from the value of the thing itself. There’s nothing wrong with ‘human rights’, per se, for humans. Indeed, the Human Rights Act is one of the best things Tony Blair has done in this country, whatever the tabloids continue to scream about it.

Mike
 
I think apes are highly evolved intelligent beings who deserve to be treated with more care and consideration than less evolved animals, but they aren’t entitled to full human rights.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Has anyone else picked up on the irony of discussing if apes should be given human rights – in a society where even unborn humans aren’t given the most basic of human rights?
Click to expand...
If you believe in there is an irony in treating other animals with respect vis a vis abortion, then this cuts both ways - if we must treasure *all *life as sacrosanct then on what grounds do we currently *deny *animals those same values?
:whistle:
 
FightingFat said:
If you believe in there is an irony in treating other animals with respect vis a vis abortion, then this cuts both ways - if we must treasure *all *life as sacrosanct then on what grounds do we currently *deny *animals those same values?
:whistle:
Click to expand...
Then why call it human rights? That tends to throw in the distinction I think of which you ask.
 
FightingFat said:
If you believe in there is an irony in treating other animals with respect vis a vis abortion, then this cuts both ways - if we must treasure *all *life as sacrosanct then on what grounds do we currently *deny *animals those same values?
Click to expand...
Your argument begs the question – it asks me to assume that animals have human rights that can be denied.
 
I think there should be classifications, with human rights being at the top. Apes and dolphins would be next, and so on and so forth. Yes, I think we should be concerned about animal rights, the Jews decreed that even the beasts of burden rest on the Sabbath, so it’s scriptural.
 
JLSacred said:
I think there should be classifications, with human rights being at the top. Apes and dolphins would be next, and so on and so forth. Yes, I think we should be concerned about animal rights, the Jews decreed that even the beasts of burden rest on the Sabbath, so it’s scriptural.
Click to expand...
The concept of animal rights cheapens the concept of rights.

Only humans have rights, and to deny a human his rights dehumanizes him.

Toward animals, we have obligations, and to violate those obligations dehumanizes us. A man who beats an animal does not sin against the animal, but against himself and against all humanity.
 
vern_humphrey said:
The concept of animal rights cheapens the concept of rights.

Only humans have rights, and to deny a human his rights dehumanizes him.

Toward animals, we have obligations, and to violate those obligations dehumanizes us. A man who beats an animal does not sin against the animal, but against himself and against all humanity.
Click to expand...
You have a point in your semantics. I stand by my opinion though. I’d like to see more laws protecting animals, whether you call it animal rights or human obligations, I think we need to take better care of our furry friends.
 
ONE of the reasons why HUMANS, as a species, have rights, is that HUMANS have the ability to pose arguments and to discuss the subject.

Apes, as a species, totally lack any ability to demonstrate skills in argument, logic, and verbal/written cogent communications skills.

Animals, as a species, have never been able to demonstrate for themselves why they have rights. In every case, individual members of the HUMAN species have taken it upon themselves to endow animals with human-like attributes and then to use “logic” to extend the attributes so that some sort of “rights” can be assumed by the animal species.
 
vern_humphrey said:
The concept of animal rights cheapens the concept of rights.

Only humans have rights, and to deny a human his rights dehumanizes him.

Toward animals, we have obligations, and to violate those obligations dehumanizes us. A man who beats an animal does not sin against the animal, but against himself and against all humanity.
Click to expand...
I agree that being mean to animals is harmful to the human soul however, I also think that to harm an animal is a “sin”(?) against the animal, because the animal does have a soul, even if not an immortal one. Also an animal, too, is a creature of god.

Catholig
 
JLSacred said:
You have a point in your semantics. I stand by my opinion though. I’d like to see more laws protecting animals, whether you call it animal rights or human obligations, I think we need to take better care of our furry friends.
Click to expand...
Then let us call them obligations toward animals, not rights.

If animals have rights, we get into silly arguments about what rights which animals have – does a butterfly have the same rights as a bullfrog? Do mosquitoes have a right to life? What about amoebas? Is it murder to cure a human of amoebic dysentery?
 
JLSacred said:
I think there should be classifications, with human rights being at the top. Apes and dolphins would be next, and so on and so forth. Yes, I think we should be concerned about animal rights, the Jews decreed that even the beasts of burden rest on the Sabbath, so it’s scriptural.
Click to expand...
I guess we can expect chimpanzees marching with placards down madison avenue protesting why we havent granted them equal rights?
 
vern_humphrey said:
Then let us call them obligations toward animals, not rights.

If animals have rights, we get into silly arguments about what rights which animals have – does a butterfly have the same rights as a bullfrog? Do mosquitoes have a right to life? What about amoebas? Is it murder to cure a human of amoebic dysentery?
Click to expand...
I mentioned in my above post that the higher animals deserve protections. I’m not an extremist, by any means. Of course it’s silly to protect ameobias
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top