Animal Rights and Criminality

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

It seems reasonable to assume that most thinking people would laugh at the idea of animals being granted human rights and personhood status, but it is happening (for one example, see "An Elephant is now a Person?"), and is increasing. (Even rivers are getting personhood status!) Non-humans are being given rights that include the ability to have legal representation — to file lawsuits.

It is common to file on behalf of people with reduced mental capabilities since they are human, after all. As much as Basement Cat had a unique personality and awareness of many things, she did not show advanced cognitive abilities. She did not know catness.

Horses fighting, Pexels / Kenzhar Sharap
The article that inspired this one pointed out that certain cognitive tests were given to animals to see if they were self-aware. Interesting, that would mean that only the most rudimentary tests would be used. Some can recognize themselves in mirrors. Some cannot, so that's not consistent. Some activists want to use virtues such as compassion and courage instead, but that strikes this child as special pleading — and also subjective.

A question of morality arises, since rights normally require responsibilities. People can see animals mating in public, but animals don't consider it immoral. Critters also protect their territories from predators or interlopers. When a male lion takes over a pride, he kills the young of the other lions. Nothing personal, just business.

The article also discussed that the animal rights folks are only trying to be plaintiffs, but animals are not defendants. Can you imagine trying to arrest an animal for doing those things mentioned above? Not hardly! It's for political reasons, plain and simple.

Animals can sue humans when activists file legal actions on their behalf, but nothing happens when animals harm humans.

"Oh, look, Cowboy Bob! What a cute chimpanzee! I didn't know that they could be as big as people. Hey, he's smiling at me!"

You'd better hope that plexiglass holds, old son. That's not a smile. He wants to kill you with extreme prejudice. Your heirs will not be able to prosecute or sue the beast, either.

Ever sue a dog for biting you? The owners, yes. For something truly shocking, use a trusted search engine and look up how bears have eaten campers (I could only read a few sentences of each report). Try to arrest the squirrels stealing the seed from the bird feeders.

In all of the examples mentioned, it is animals being animals.

I will link to it below, but the article is from an Intelligent Design perspective. It's good, but I have a few serious problems with the ID Movement. (Again, there's a big difference between using intelligent design arguments and the movement itself.) I'm a mite surprised that they didn't mention that such extreme animal rights activism is rooted in evolutionism. Ride up on the hill for the big picture and study on it a spell.

Non-human rights activists are inconsistent. If we evolved from a common ancestor, they say we should be considerate of other products of evolution. Are we animals ourselves? According to the predominant biological classification system, yes. Misotheists then get that bit between their teeth and gallop for the hills, pretending that we are only animals because of classification and their evolutionary presuppositions. No, we are far more than just animals. We are created in the image of God — which also brings us certain rights and responsibilities.

The non-human persons movement is irrational and lacks a coherent foundation. Truth is not subjective. To have a rational and consistent basis of truth, ethics, morality, logic, and even cogent thought is found in Jesus Christ.

As promised, here is a link to the article that prompted this one. To read it, ride on over to "Can Animals Be Held Criminally Responsible?" Don't let your horses fight, you could be sued for not preventing it.