“If humans have the right to free life then animals should too but they don’t, therefore humans don’t either.”
There’s a mistake right there in the first paragraph, a non sequitur. You have to establish the idea that if humans have a basic natural right, then animals have it too. You can’t just make the assertion without backing it up.
I draw an equivalency between humans and animals in a biological, material sense. The establishment of a right to free life is adopted from the quote. I thought the truth of animals not having this same right was obvious... therefore their lack equates to our lack.
I guess the question I’m really asking with this assumption of obvious truth is: Can an unexercisable right really be considered a right.
Animals have the same right to a free life as established in the quote because I put them and humans in the same biological/material category. Why did I do this? That is something I should have spent time elucidating when I first wrote the piece. I do address it somewhat in that the I’m primarily concerned with the physical security of the organism and in this sense animals and humans operate in similar fashions and are subject to the same whims of nature.
If you allow this categorical merging I think there is some logic in my argument.
This is what’s called begging the question.