DAnconiaLead
10-22-16, 02:45 PM
Several high-profile "animal-rights organizations", including PETA, Sea Shepherds, Greenpeace, SAEN, IPPL, The Humane League, the Animal Equality Fund, and others, are currently attempting to force 'test-cases' through various court-systems, and employ other means, to attempt to secure "human-rights" for (non-human) animals.
While I believe that no animal, whether it be a wild-animal, pet, beast-of-burden, livestock, or service-animal should be mistreated, granting "human-rights" to non-human animals, by the government, is a cause for concern.
Since there's no way to grant non-human animals full human rights, any government granting "human-rights" to non-human animals would inevitably grant less-then-full "human-rights" to these "new humans"... This would then provide that government with the 'legal precedent' to similarly limit the rights of real humans, by arguing that they are putting all "humans" (both real humans and human-rights endowed animals) on the same legal plane.
This would (legally) "entitle" the government to treat humans as they now treat animals...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-32854504
http://us.whales.org/issues/primer-on-non-human-personhood-and-cetacean-rights
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/
http://think-differently-about-sheep.com/Animal%20_rights_A_History_Peter_Singer.htm
While it may not yet be widespread, the belief that government should grant "human-rights" to non-human animals seems to be becoming 'vogue' in many segments of the Statist Left, the same individuals who believe that "they know what's best" for the people of a nation/the world and that the government should be empowered to force "the people" to do whatever these Leftist think is 'best' regardless of what individuals might desire, just as an animal's owner can force it to do whatever they think is right... Including animals in human-rights could serve to dilute those rights enough to allow the Statist to breach them...
While I believe that no animal, whether it be a wild-animal, pet, beast-of-burden, livestock, or service-animal should be mistreated, granting "human-rights" to non-human animals, by the government, is a cause for concern.
Since there's no way to grant non-human animals full human rights, any government granting "human-rights" to non-human animals would inevitably grant less-then-full "human-rights" to these "new humans"... This would then provide that government with the 'legal precedent' to similarly limit the rights of real humans, by arguing that they are putting all "humans" (both real humans and human-rights endowed animals) on the same legal plane.
This would (legally) "entitle" the government to treat humans as they now treat animals...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-32854504
http://us.whales.org/issues/primer-on-non-human-personhood-and-cetacean-rights
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/
http://think-differently-about-sheep.com/Animal%20_rights_A_History_Peter_Singer.htm
While it may not yet be widespread, the belief that government should grant "human-rights" to non-human animals seems to be becoming 'vogue' in many segments of the Statist Left, the same individuals who believe that "they know what's best" for the people of a nation/the world and that the government should be empowered to force "the people" to do whatever these Leftist think is 'best' regardless of what individuals might desire, just as an animal's owner can force it to do whatever they think is right... Including animals in human-rights could serve to dilute those rights enough to allow the Statist to breach them...