Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just had to try and do some diggings on just what this group felt the need to protect these chimps?? This ruling doesn't declare Chimps as Human..But it does support the rights to Humane ( note extra "e") treatment of animals..All of us who have/had fur buddies understand that animals are often treasured not just for familial connections but goes deeper. Chimps have been shown by the likes of renowned Money researcher Jane Goodall ..Who actually lived amongst them..and learned about them and Yes her books explain..these primates ARE not just mindless dumb animals..But multilayered in personalities and thinkings..have emotions and connections not UNLIKE human beings....Anyway.....Giving these chimps a reprieve to seek some protections does NOT mean what every extreme viewed political animal to claim...OK..Lib's declaring Chimps Human...I just SMH
I think that animals should certainly have rights; and it must be acknowledged that many states have laws that govern the care and treatment of animals. In this the law both confers rights and imposes duties. Ethically, if you consider whether or not animals should have rights, it would be difficult to justify our assertion of such mastery over them.
One of my favorite books about the natural world is by Henry Beston, who, I think, may have come closest to the truth about man and his place among the animal kingdom when he wrote:
"We need another and wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken a form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren; they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendor and travail of the earth."
- Henry Beston, The Outermost House (1928)
I will note that, as a general rule, judges do not compose their own orders. Rather, they indicate what their ruling is (from the bench, perhaps by email these days), and directs the 'winning' party to submit an order for signature.
It does appear that the 'animal rights' nutters prepared an order that did not reflect the judge's order (not utterly unknown), and that the judge signed off without reading it carefully (also not utterly unknown).
When I was in private practice I had one instance where the other party submitted to me (as per practice) a copy of the order they were providing to the trial judge for signature. I found language that went further than what the judge had ruled, and so protested (with the judge upholding the protest).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's Next?
