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

In "No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" Wesley Smith talks about an orangutan that has been granted "personhood" by a judge in Argentina. Smith uses a lot of personification in his writing to make the orangutan related to people. The orangutan, named Sandra, is said to be treated like a prisoner and the AFADA believes that she should be transferred to a sanctuary. The article closes with the author using pathos to try and adding emotion to it. He tells the reader to "sleep well" knowing that Sandra isn't getting the right care and is not being treated like a "person" like she is supposed to be. This article goes hand-in-hand with the article "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court". This article also talks about the mistreatment of Sandra the orangutan. They call Sandra a "pioneer" in this article and personify her by saying she is being help captive. This article states that it has been decided that Sandra is not human but has some human characteristics. My opinion is that Sandra should either not be considered a "person", which would make her being held in a zoo more reasonable, or granted her freedom and rights like an actual "person" if that is what she is. Both authors of these articles used an interesting writing technique with a combination of ethos and pathos to try and get the reader to take their side. I found myself siding with Sandra and the authors while reading these articles because, to me, an animal should have at least some chance at a free life outside the confinement of a zoo. I also believe that the court should be more specific in their definition of a "person" and the values that the deem right or wrong. In my opinion, I think zoos are a cool source of entertainment, but I do not necessarily agree with them. I also think that there will never be enough of a push or drive to shut zoos down and let animals be free.