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

The article “No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus” is unlike the previous articles we read.  The author’s main approach to back up his theme of the piece included delicately choosing his diction.  Throughout the article there is emphasis on words such as person, slaves, hapeas corpus, ludicrous, disappointed.  All these words where particularly placed in the sentence in hopes to leave the reader with the lasting impression on the attitude of the author, animal rights.  The author’s main goal of the article, I believe, is to call attention on animal injustice and in response they should be treated better, as stated, with rights of a “person”.  Although I agree animals have rights, I think it is incorrect to have them gain “personhood”.  Animals have some human qualities, but they are still animals.  A major part of being a human is communication and interaction, something animals lack a strong sense of.  I think it depends on what the author extends are of human rights on animals.  Could you imagine orangutan’s walking around, being part of the human society?  I guess when I hear “personhood” that is what I picture, but I can imagine that is not what the author entailed.  However, that is the new issue how do we define “personhood”, and where does the line stop when we come to these new emphasis on animal rights?

            On the other end of the court case, we read about a case that was successful in the article “Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court.”  The judge presents that Sandra, an orangutan that is legally is a “person,” does express human qualities.  However, he also comments that she is a “non-human person [who] has some basic human rights” (Alisa Mullins).  I think this expresses the bottom line and the definition we were searching for after reading the first article.  The word “person” is a loaded word, it can be looked at in many different perspectives; which is something I think should be kept in mind when defining animal rights.  Because do we really want to classify animals as people or just improve their justices?