Orangutan Articles

First of all, I really liked the fact that Hollars paired these two articles with one another. It’s helpful to see both sides of the article rather than just one opinion on the matter. Personally, I don’t think that animals should have human rights, regardless of their intellectual level. I simply don’t see the point of it. I understand that the group that was arguing for the orangutans “personhood” said that they were doing so because it was “unjustified confinement of an animal with proven cognitive ability”. But couldn’t you say the same thing of prisoners? I am not comparing the personalities or general brain composure of an orangutan to a prisoner, or vice versa, I am simply saying that prisoners definitely still have cognitive abilities, but are confined, sometimes unjustifiably, and lose their rights. And where will the line be drawn? What is to say that now that one orangutan is considered a “person” that it won’t be protested for other animals to be considered a “person”? And what does that definition even include? Judges that decided Sandra’s case (which I am reluctant to say because it makes her sound human, when it was really Animal Rights case) they “unanimously agreed that Sandra is a “non-human person [who] has some basic human rights””. So, what is a non-human person? What is the point of classification of we are just going to meld all groups together? I do believe that animals deserved to be cared for and should not be maltreated, but I think that they should have their own set of rights.