"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus & Orangutan Declared a Person"

The first article "No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" shows just how far animal activist are going in order to ensure the rights of animals in captivity. Initially I didn't understand how they could even make a case for an orangutan to be granted "personhood". However, as I read on I started to understand what they were trying to accomplish. It isn't that these activists want an orangutan to be seen as a human being like you and me. They more or less only want the same rights for animals as we have as humans such as, the right to life, the right not to be tortured, or ill treated physically or psychologically. To us these types of rights we never even think about because they have never been an issue. However, for animals they have no choice as to how they are treated. With that said I think that "personhood" is the wrong term to use when trying to protect these animals. Right now I think that by comparing animals to humans is the only way that activists are going to draw any attention to the cause.

To answer the blog leader Ian's question, I don't think at this point there is even a threshold to cross. This seems like a relatively new idea and there seems to be no set boundaries right now on what is right and what is wrong when it comes to an animal people worthy of these rights. Personally, I don't see why an orangutan wouldn't be worthy of the three basic rights described in the first article. Who are we as humans to say whether or not an animal should be subjected to torture or ill-treatment in anyway when they can't speak for themselves. To me every animal is worthy of these three basic rights. However, animals don't need the label of "personhood" in order to gain these rights. The fact is that humans and animals are different and alike in many ways but that doesn't mean that just because humans can communicate their fears and apprehensions and sometimes animals can't we have the right to dictate how an animal spends its life in captivity or in the wild. Like humans, animals need to be in an environment that feels natural and safe to them in order to be happy and healthy.

The second article "Orangutan Declared a 'Person' by Argentine Court" initially caught my attention because of the title. When a person decides whether or not to read an article the first thing they look at is the title. With this title it attracts a wide variety of people because of the term orangutan and person used in the same sentence. It was interesting to learn about what orangutang's are actually capable of doing, such as creating tools and using leaves as drink in cups. These types of statements humanizes these animals and forces people to few them as a very intelligent species. In many instances the author makes the connection between orangutang and human such as, "just like humans" and "person of the forest" (Mullins). The repetitive use of these phrases helps the author make comparisons between animal and human in order to prove a point. By using descriptive wording the authors in both of the articles were able to draw the readers in and make them feel maybe even a little guilty for the animals in captivity.