"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" & "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court"

In Wesley Smith’s article entitled “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” he writes about how animal rights activists are trying help orangutans gain the title of “personhood”. He continues by explaining how this could be done by simply finding “one judge” who wants to go down in history. He directly quotes AFADA’s argument about the situation, and how they believe Sandra, an orangutan, should be given “at least three basic rights, the right to life, the right not to be tortured or ill treated physically or psychologically”. On the other hand, Alisa Mullins, a PETA member, writes about how one month later Sandra was given some basic rights and will now be transferred to a sanctuary. Throughout the article, Mullins continually personifies Sandra and other orangutans alike. She does this by referring to all of the different tools that orangutans are known for making.

 In my opinion, orangutans should be given some rights and not be treated inhumanely. On the other hand, I agree more with Smith in that animals should not be given more rights than humans, nor should the world focus solely on animals when so many of the humans are struggling to live. What would happen if an orangutan was legally declared a person? When would the line be crossed? What if the world turned into the planet of the apes?