Even though I'm not a big fan of animal experimentation or even the way people cook shellfish, the concept of applying "rights," a concept exclusively reserved for humans (by virtue of being created by humans) is an outgrowth of a childish anthropomorphizing of all that is "Cute and Fuzzy."

What "rights" do animals in the wild enjoy? The only rights that might bestows upon them. The strongest eat first, mate first (and most often), and receive the best of whatever the pack or tribal unit has.

The concept of "rights" as we understand them today is a strictly human invention. We started out similarly to the animals, giving fealty to the "alpha male" of our group, but when enough of us lower-echelon types got sick of getting seconds, thirds, or nothing at all, we banded together and invented rights. Look at how the Magna Charta was formed: lower-ranking citizens working together to force the ruling class to endorse their idea. Civil rights? Same thing: the underprivileged got together and worked to make sure they got their fair share. Think Hammurabi just decided to be a nice guy? No.

The same situation exists today. Take your "rights" as an American citizen to Zimbabwe and see if they're recognized. Try Iran or China if that doesn't work out. Or get out into the animal kingdom and try to assert yourself in an ape tribe using your human-given rights. Tell the alpha male just how wrong he is to take from you and explain to him the virtues of sharing and the concept of rights. Maybe there will be enough left of you to scrape up and put in a coffin. Despite the alleged complexities of primate languages and social customs, there is no way to communicate such an abstract concept as rights. That may be due to a lack of linguistic aptitude, or more likely they cannot communicate such a thought because they do not have such thoughts.

To apply the concepts of human rights to non-humans is a childish fallacy. Animals, although possessed of emotions and limited reasoning, are not human. "Human" is a term used to encompass all the traits--both virtues and vices--that make us human. From reasoning and rationality to temper and lusts, the sum total of these traits define human beings. Despite having some of these traits in common with us, animals do not possess them all and are thus not human.

As a simple example, a Camaro does not share all its traits with a Mustang. Despite common features--engine, doors, paint, etc.--they are not the same thing and are instead grouped under the general category of "cars," as we are lumped in with other animals under the general heading of "animals."

I tend to lean toward other posters' assertions that we, as the dominant life form on the planet, are in a position of custodianship over the lesser orders. And why not? We place ourselves in such positions over humans who are less able to care for themselves, such as our elderly citizens, our children, or those with lessened emotional or intellectual capacity. As the "ruling class" of animals that uses lower orders to further its own ends, it behooves us to make sure that they are "used" responsibly and are looked after with compassion and respect not because animals are cute and fluffy or are "people with fur," but because it is simply the right and proper thing to do, in itself a distinction that sets humans apart from animals, and a trait that animals do not and cannot possess.

Well, I suppose Grumpy_Bastich’s post does contain a fair number of commonsensical points. Who can argue against the notion that non-human animals don’t share all the traits that make us human? Who would dispute that vesting non-human animals with the full range of human rights is a silly proposition? And who would deny that we humans, by virtue of our brains, our numbers, and our technology, have become the custodians of many other species? Not me. Hardly anyone is contesting those points as far as I can see.

Now I would contest his (or her) reductionist, “nature red in tooth and claw” description of typical animal behavior. It’s decades out of date. But since it was used mostly to add a bit of dramatic flair, we can let it.

No, absent the drama and the truisms, the main point was that “rights” as such should only be bestowed on those able to win them (by force if necessary), understand them, and reciprocate them. A number of folks here have argued that point repeatedly. And it’s a fair point. Intentionally or not, I think those that insist on making that point usually sidestep the essential issues involved in the whole “animal rights” debate rather neatly, but I can see their logic.

That said, I’m still waiting for one of the “animals DO NOT have rights because rights are a contract” people to explain to us all why severely mentally-impaired people, for example, simply do not have human rights as such. Honest to Pete, for the life of me I can’t recall anyone jumping up in a public forum to insist that it’s a childish fallacy to suggest that an adult human with the IQ of a four year-old might have rights. Not even once.

"Now I would contest his reductionist, “nature red in tooth and claw” description of typical animal behavior. It’s decades out of date. But since it was used mostly to add a bit of dramatic flair, we can let it."

How can such a description of animal behavior be out of date if animals still behave that way? They have yet to evolve sufficiently to negotiate treaties and as I said, even though primates in the wild have societal structures, they are still using the concept of "might makes right" to define their society. And no, it was not used to add dramatic flair. That part was your perception, not my intent.

And I don't believe I "sidestepped" anything. I clearly stated that animals do not have rights, at least not the rights that PETA and the like would wish them to have. Any rights they have in the wild are those they earn. Any rights they have while in the human world are those we bestow upon them. In a similar fashion, when we intrude on their world, we have only the rights they give us. This is why humans are attacked, eaten, stung, bitten, or what have you: the animals, reddened of tooth and claw by biting us in the leg, did not recognize our self-claimed rights and judged us by their own standards.

You haven't seen anyone insist that it's fallacious to give an adult human with a diminished IQ any human rights because it's not a fallacy. You state you're still waiting for someone like me to explain why mentally impaired people simply do not have human rights. That won't happen simply because the impaired are still human. What makes them human is still present; it is simply suppressed or diminished. A freakish natural occurrence does not deny someone humanity: they were intended to be human and were born human, just different. Someone with bad eyesight is no more or less a human than someone with 20/20 vision, obesity is no bar to humanity, nor is intelligence.

Human rights are for humans, regardless of their condition at birth or through circumstance. (And that includes George W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh as much as Michael Moore and Hugo Chavez.)

Granting human rights to apes? It made for a good Charlton Heston movie, but it's poor practice in the real world.

But I forgot to add that you get extra points for debating, rather than arguing and being a jerk like so many others on the board.

Good discussion!