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

In “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” Wesley Smith fails to build pathos and more importantly, ethos. I found his choice in opening the article by condemning the opposing side to be too blunt.  He continues to lack my trust when his support for his argument doesn’t extend past the announcement that the opposing side is “ludicrous” in their thinking. I’m sure it worked for some, we shouldn’t need to be told why an orangutan is not a “person,” I just think since the magazine doesn’t appear to be a medium for satire he should have taken a more mature approach. If he had backed up his argument and offered some respect towards the opposing side I probably would have found myself supporting his article.

On the other hand, Alisa Mullins’s article “Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court” takes advantage of the power of pathos and ethos right away. She both supports her argument and appeals to our emotions when she states that the Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights believes that the confinement of a high functioning orangutan is similar to unjustified human imprisonment. She even supports their cognitive ability by giving examples of the orangutan’s skills, like creating tools. Although I disagree with ruling an animal as a person, Mullins’s rhetorical consideration has me more willing to support her case than Smith’s.