Law of the jungle now has its own Bill of Rights
We usually don’t concern ourselves with the activities of the parliament of Spain, but they are about to pass a resolution that may get them some news in the U.S. They’re about to pass what amounts to a Bill of Rights for monkeys. Now, I can respect monkeys. They’re animals, and I like animals. I even owned some and gave them names once. But the passage of this resolution has implications far beyond simply respecting animals.
The resolution, approved last week by a parliamentary committee with broad support, urges the government to implement the agenda of the Great Ape Project, an organization whose founding declaration says apes “may not be killed” or “arbitrarily deprived of their liberty.”
I am not sure apes have liberty, unless they mean it in the strict sense of “freedom to move about the forest,” which is an ability, not a metaphysical right endowed by any kind of supreme moral being. The journalist here explains how evolutionary theory may be the culprit that leads to such ridiculous resolutions.
If the idea of treating chimps like people freaks you out, join the club. Creationists have been fighting this battle for a long time. They realized long ago that evolution threatened humanity’s special status. Maybe you thought all this evolution stuff was just about the past. Surprise! Once you’ve admitted chimps are your relatives, you have to think about treating them that way. That’s why, when the Spanish proposal won approval last week, GAP’s leader in Spain called it a victory for “our evolutionary comrades.”
I suppose they’ll be letting them vote soon.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top24 Comments to “Law of the jungle now has its own Bill of Rights”
There’s no slippery slo-aaaaaaaaahhhhh!
Report comment to moderator
I find it tragic that our animal friends will soon have more rights than our unborn children.
Report comment to moderator
They’re not children.
As for the substance of the post, we have lots of laws respecting “rights” of animals. Pets, race horses, even livestock are protected from cruelty and even methods of killing them are prescribed.
We are prohibited from killing a host of protected species and even some protected plants.
Somehow I think it is the fact that monkeys are involved that has raised the ire of this blog.
Could it be because they are our closest ancestors? And why would a (nominally) religious blog get upset about protecting our closest ancestors when we already protect much more distant relatives?
Would you, MIM, extend prohibitions against killing certain animals to prohibiting aborting their fetuses???
Report comment to moderator
I suppose they’ll be letting them vote soon.
Well, they obviously already do vote and some monkeys have even been elected to political office in Spain’s Parliament
Report comment to moderator
I don’t want them experimented on either, nor do I want them hurt. I’m all for leaving them alone in their natural habitat, even checking on them now and again to make sure they’re all right — but I do that for my cat, too.
But as appreciation for animals is increased, the human species through abortion and euthanasia, is headed for extinction.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, there is a world of difference between a protected species list and other legislation than a “bill of rights” regarding an animal’s LIBERTY.
I thought you went to law school. Animals are property, not remote signatories to the Declaration of Independence.
And I am not related to the apes any more than I am related to my cat. We have similar genes because we all have eyes and stomachs and livers, but they are not “relatives” — even if I’d choose some of them over some of my real relatives.
Report comment to moderator
NJL the human species is headed for extinction?
Wow. Hyperbole, thy name is that.
Denial doesn’t change biological reality my friend.
HSK is pretty slick with the poofy nonsense. “not a metaphysical right endowed by any kind of supreme moral being.
true. there are no such rights. just agreements between humans.
Report comment to moderator
Llama – you stole it from me!! Good work.
“fetus” … the word that dehumanizes human children to the point where they can be destroyed by murderers without guilt or pity. Funny, I bet you wouldn’t need to pass any laws to protect the ape unborn…I’d wager they don’t kill them. And there is probably no market for abortionists to abort the unborn of animals – their credit reports prohibit them from getting bank accounts.
Is there a rampant population of apes in Spain where they even NEED to worry about this?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Erasmus, if you kill the young before they are born, if you knock off the old and the infirm — well, it takes a certain kind of people to do that sort of thing (in the past they were called Nazis), only our liberal “progressive” society learned, to quote the Wicked Witch of the West, that these things “must be done delicately.” So, it is slowly, step by step, and our society agreed to kill its young, it’s working on euthanasia statutes now — not only for the young, but for those born with birth defects and the disabled, too. The kind of mind that can kill through “logic” doesn’t have a heart, doesn’t have the wisdom to know that much can be learned from the infirm and disabled. And once you kill people because they are inconvenient, because of some arbitrary “quality of life,” it is very easy to kill them for other reasons, too. Think Nazis. Think eugenics. What is going on today is just the “kinder, gentler” version of Nazism and 1930s eugenics.
But at least the Great Apes will be safe, and I’ve got nothing against them. I just wish humans would care about other humans with the same intensity.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia #3
“They’re not children.”
Tell that to any woman who’s mourned the loss of her *baby* through miscarriage. What a horrid position you’re trying to defend!
Report comment to moderator
Here is a better bill of rights created by Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA.
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
(This one is my pet peeve…get an education you pay for and go to work….don’t expect
everyone else to take care of you!)
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, Social Security, Medicare and welfare – we’re just not interested in public health care.
RTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where
you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly….)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH, go pound sand!
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER,
Please do not tell me Arcadia went to law school. You poor lawyrers are already taking shots from all sides and you don’t need a target painted on the front of you with the DC Lawyer target already painted on your backs
Report comment to moderator
“They’re not children.”
So proclaims the god-like Arcadia….
This sounds like the prelude to the classic argument:
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
Yes it is.
No it isn’t.
It is.
Isn’t.
It is.
Isn’t.
It is.
Isn’t.
Slap!
Wop!
Pow!
Slappity, slap, slap, slap!
Report comment to moderator
MiM: Is now when I exercise my newfound right to bear arms and whip out my handgun??
(just kidding, for the concrete thinkers out there)
But it would be nice if you could find some biblical backup for your claim. There are virtually no references to fetuses and those that do don’t help your cause much. And, for that matter the bible isn’t even especially respectful of children. They are at best less than fully human and at worst, chattel.
Report comment to moderator
NJL Animals are property.
Hmm, who owns a member of a protected species in the wild? No man is allowed to harm or capture them, nor even interfere with their habitat. That sounds pretty much like a set of rights somewhat better than those ever found in our constitution.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, even wild animals are more akin to property, as you well know, and you also know that per law school, animals are property — not people. (I can’t believe you threw out your Dukeminier!) If you have an overwhelming need to become “Spanish” and give apes “human rights” (in Spain only I might add), I can’t stop you. If you google Spain, it was in the news last week that Spain wants to become more “relevant” and less a non-entity. So, I guess this is how they plan to do that. Jump on their bandwagon all you want, but you know there is a difference between a statute that preserves a habitat and giving an ape the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The individual right to gun ownership is NOT a “new found” right. Every American knew what the Second Amendment meant when it was ratified, and only people who don’t know history and/or wanted to make that history say something it doesn’t say wanted the opinion to go the other way. It is only “new” to someone who wants to lie and subvert the Constitution.
Whatever happened to DCL?
Report comment to moderator
re #14 …”And, for that matter the bible isn’t even especially respectful of children. They are at best less than fully human and at worst, chattel.”…
Matthew 19:13-14 The scriptures may speak for themselves.
The Bible doesn’t mention “fetus”. Hmmm – could it be because God doesn’t equate an unborn human with a word that allows for the stripping of their very humanity so they may, without pity or guilt, be murdered?
I don’t think that would be a stretch.
Report comment to moderator
“Is now when I exercise my newfound right to bear arms and whip out my handgun??”
Sure. If you want to prove what a criminal you are. Most conservatives see the right to bear arms as a way to protect themselves from such elements rather than being one of those elements…
Report comment to moderator
Why would the Bible mention fetus?? It does refer to the fruit of the womb and being knit together in the womb, both references positive ones. Children of any age are considered a blessing in Scripture. The assumption is that NOT having children is something to be mourned.
Report comment to moderator
“But it would be nice if you could find some biblical backup for your claim.
Even if I was a biblical scholar, I doubt very much whether you would heed the biblical justification for my stance. You’ve already made up your mind that the Bible isn’t true anyway, so even if I explained it to your satisfaction, you’d still discount it as untrue.
“There are virtually no references to fetuses and those that do don’t help your cause much.”
It’s only because you’ve got a closed mind that this is true for you. (I’ll give you at least one example if you still insist.) Even if this were true, the argument that “The bible doesn’t talk about that issue” is not one that holds water. There’s lots of things the Bible doesn’t specifically mention, but it can easily be demonstrated that these are things God prohibits. One example given the other day was internet porn.
“And, for that matter the bible isn’t even especially respectful of children. They are at best less than fully human and at worst, chattel.”
I would think by now that, you’d realize that the covenant made in the New Testament was significantly ennobling for both women and children, and changed things a great deal both at the time and in ensuing history. Western Civilization has changed dramatically because of Christianity and the dignity it gave mankind – and this includes children.
Report comment to moderator
19
except of course the children of babylon, blessed are they who bash the heads of those little ones against the stones.
Report comment to moderator
Liberals never know when to quit.
They must always fight for the rights of something to give life meaning. If there is nothing left to fight for, they will make up stuff. Rights for animals and plants and rocks? Who cares? Meaning in life is found in the protest itself.
Report comment to moderator
We should protect animals from cruelty, because we are human and have a built-in sense of compassion that animals generally do not have toward other species. (I’ve never heard of a lion who fought for the rights of antelopes and zebras.)
If we reduce ourselves to the status of “evolved animals,” then why should we care anything about the rights of other species? The law of the jungle is simply to survive at all costs. It is precisely our position as the stewards of the earth that gives us the right, the responsibility, and the ability to defend lower species.
Report comment to moderator
KyleA is absolutely right.
And let’s remember that the Spaniards are the same people who are presently planning to let bulls run loose through the streets.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!