[brownsfan]

It’s really only a matter of time before people will be legally marrying animals in the USA.

[UCANSEE2]

Do animals have constitutional protection?

Only the species that signed the constitution.

[Flycatcher]

In a sane world, this judge would be tarred and feathered, thrown into the trunk, and sent across the border.

Any border.

[gundog]

Free Willy! Then tax him.

[cartoonistx]

Animals can have rights when they get responsibilities!

[Rinnwald]

Mkes me wonder why we even bother with a republican form of government. All that voting and bother and expense is surely not justified. We should just have a binding forum of judges deciding everything in life.

[mountainlion]

We are slaves to our government. Animals have it better.

[Joe 6-pack]

WOOOF!

The Doggie Ping list is for FReepers who would like to be notified of threads relating to all things canid. If you would like to join the Doggie Ping Pack (or be unleashed from it), FReemail me.

[COBOL2Java]

Do animals have constitutional protection?

But of course! Unborn babies, on the other hand...

[Road Warrior ‘04]

The courts will decided if animals have constitutional rights, but won't touch the rights, or denial of rights, of the voters when intimidated by the Black Panthers?

[ColdOne]

At this rate it is only a matter of time.

[BuffaloJack]

When the critters pay taxes then we can considered extending them rights.
The same should be said for the illegal migrants.

[liberalh8ter]

PETA needs to be fined eleventy billion dollars for bringing forth this frivolous lawsuit. Who's to say the orcas aren't loving life at Sea World?

[Steely Tom]

PETA is doing this simply to make a mockery of the legal system and the Constitution, in just the same way that the homosexual community is using "gay marriage" to make a mockery of marriage and the family.

By mocking it they hope to undermine it. Others can then carry forward further phases of the destruction process.

[chiefqc]

Yea it’s only the unborn babies who have no protection or rights.

[Secret Agent Man]

If they do, then we need to file lawsuits in all 50 states and all ten federal court jurisdictions to get Roe overturned. On the basis if animals have these rights, the human unborn have to as well.

I love my animals and I’ll die protecting them, that’s my choice. They are more to me than property. But the very fact they are my property allows ME to take care of them and be responsible for them, and that they have certain rights that I am to take care of them and feed and water and shelter them and get them medical care when needed. Without anyone else being able to take them from me. I consider them non-human family members, not all people do. But I can protect them because anyone who’ll go after them will be going after me and I can legally defend myself or my other family/friends around me.

Animals are best cared for when they belong to someone. They live far longer and generally better lives than in the wild. THe wild animal shows show you what ‘life in the wild’ is like. It is scary and tense and brutal and without mercy.

Finally if animals can sue (via proxy groups) regarding things that will affect their lives negatively, and maybe kill some of them, then unborn human people have to have this right as well. Otherwise you are legally placing them lower than animals. This is perhaps the best argument to run with. Argue the unborn should have at least the same legal protection that the animals do against those that may propose things that hurt or kill them.

[itsahoot]

Like the Founding Fathers could have seen that coming.

Lawyers are the Scum of the earth, and they become judges.

[APatientMan]

“...said PETA’s attorney Jeffrey Kerr, representing the five orcas. “

In Our World, unborn babies have fewer rights than orcas.

[Darnright]

Bob Barker has been funneling money hand over fist to law schools across the country to establish the study of animal rights. Don’t take this lightly, these people are dead serious. And they are after power, not helping little puppies and kitties.