Arguments- In the moral case for protecting human rights Tommy the chimpanzee deserves to be granted legal rights because he is a legal person. In civil law, a person counts as an entity in one’s own right. This means that corporations and the objects can be counted as a person. Who is to say that chimpanzees are not legal homo-sapiens? The legal detainment of animals is cruel and the courts have the jurisdiction to change that (“chimpanzees are people too”). 1) One relatable piece of information on why animals should have rights is seen in the courts of Argentina. In Argentina, the lawyers have appealed to the court to free an orangutan who has been illegally detained.The ape's nonlegal detrainment leaves the animal in deprivation of its freedom. The orangutan has displayed cognisant capabilities and should be preserved because we are all equal under the law. The court's final decision has …show more content…
The Tulane University's Delta Regional Primate Center has been responsible for the cruelty and misconduct of the animals. In New Orleans activists took charge and issued a restraining order against researching animals because of the hindering of their physical health. (“Monkey saga continues”).Researchers have been checking the monkey's arm nerves to helping stroke victims, however, what about the monkeys? The scientific researchers at the lab have also been responsible for the implantation of “electrodes in the monkeys' brains prior to euthanasia to see what affect denervation of their arms has had on cortical functions”. (Monkey saga continues) This is an invasive procedure where the animals have no say. Animals need rights because without prior consent these animals are bound to receive pain. The researchers were willing to sacrifice the animal to uncover evidence they believe will succeed. Leading to the conclusion that experimentation should be