No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus and Orangutan Declared a Person by Argentinan Court

Even though these articles had quite less detail and wording than the past ones we have read in class, they still leave a big impact with the topic they talk about. In both these articles they talk about something very from diverse from the articles we read in he past that had to deal with relationships between humans and wildlife. These articles actually talks about the equality among them. To me it seems like these tow articles have different views of the issue surrounding if animals should be treated with the same respect as humans.  The article  I don't agree with In No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus the author agues that even though that the creature deserves entitlement to fair human treatment, they should not be considered humans. Also in this article, he goes on to talk about "human exceptionism" to describe only life aspects that belong to humans, like when he gives the example of how PETA said Sea World treats their animals like slaves, he doesn't agree wit hit because its giving the killer whales humanistic qualities. In the other article called Orangutan Declared a Person by Argentinian Court it gives the total opposite point of view as seeing these primates as humans. The author even goes as to giving examples of how hey should like the fact they can make tools out of leaves or are capable of feeling the same emotions as us. So the point is why cant these animals have rights just like us humans? We are not superior to them we were all put on this earth created equals. so what gives us the right to say that cant be released into the wild or such?