WTF!?!: Apes given legal Rights in Spain
I was on my way to bed. Really, I was. And then, I had to go on Drudge to see this story (emphasis mine):
Spain’s parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.
Parliament’s environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.
“This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity,” said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.
…My first reaction? WHAT THE FUCK?! Poz-ass is damn right that this day will go down in history. It will be remembered as the day the human race went ape-shit and legitimized feces-throwing, tree-living, sub-humans by giving them the right to life and freedom, contrary to every decent, logical standard out there. But enough about the protesters in Berkeley. I want to talk about this news article…
Actually, I can’t really think of anything to say about it. I mean, WHAT THE FUCK?! The Spanish are giving ANIMALS LEGAL RIGHTS. There’s one thing to make sure they’re treated humanely and quite another to say they enjoy some of the same rights as humans.
Of course when I read the last paragraph, one thing stood out:
Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri founded the Great Ape Project in 1993, arguing that “non-human hominids” like chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.
If you don’t know who Peter Singer is, he’s a philosopher who logically extended the “Right to Choose” to include new borns and infants as well:
According to Singer, some humans are non-persons, while some non-human animals are persons. The key is not nature or species membership, but consciousness. A pre-conscious human cannot suffer as much as a conscious horse. In dealing with animals, we care only about their quality of life. We put a horse that has broken its leg out of its misery as quickly as possible. This merciful act spares the animal an untold amount of needless suffering. If we look upon human animals in the same fashion, our opposition to killing those who are suffering will begin to dissolve. The “quality-of-life” ethic has a tangible correlative when it relates to suffering; the “sanctity-of-life” seemingly relates to a mere vapor.
Here is where Singer picks up his detractors. According to this avant garde thinker, unborn babies or neonates, lacking the requisite consciousness to qualify as persons, have less right to continue to live than an adult gorilla. By the same token, a suffering or disabled child would have a weaker claim not to be killed than a mature pig. Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:
Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.
Of course, his way of thinking isn’t untypical of his contemporaries.
Anyway, all I have to say is: WHAT THE FUCK?
What’s next? The Right to Vote for Apes?
