PETA Lawsuit Against SeaWorld Seeking Constitutional Rights For Whales

reply to post by ShortMemory


You are so true - humans have self inflated egos that make them think that they above all earthlings on this planet. What about this arrangement then... stop using animals (whales etc) for amusement and profit and this will never happen in the first place. I say sue sea world!

As for all PETA members are insane...I am a proud PETA member and am just as insane as the next member on a site like ATS. Any other citizen would say all ATS members are insane and here a member of ATS is calling a group that encourages justice and peace in this world insane??? There goes an example of the humans self inflated ego again! I pitty those who think they are better than the next when they really are a backwards, half human hicks

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Yes, except that this type of decision would grant personhood to a whale, and by extension all animals.

Do you really think that would be constructive?

reply to post by projectvxn

Yes, except that this type of decision would grant personhood to a whale, and by extension all animals.

That's the issue I have. If I want to shoot a slug with a pellet gun I don't want to go to jail for it. Damn slugs.

reply to post by Domo1


That means that hunting of any kind, eating meat, and anything animal related would be stopped dead on it's tracks.

It would be PETA forcing their BS on everyone else through judicial decree.

After visiting sea world san diego the place should be shut down. When I visited they had somewhere around 5-7 orcas in incredibly small and confined areas, it's akin to a human being locked up in a childs pool for life.

The whole park was ran down, garbage everywhere, every exhibit had tanks with condensation on the outside of the glass or leaks, I went through multiple exhibits where everything from turtles to exotic fish were all being fed with lettuce with zero regard to dietary needs.

It's a wonder why such long lived, social and intelligent animals turn on their captures facing a life of imprisonment and constant stress.

Sea world has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with exploitation. If you want to see killer whales go see them in their natural environment. I will never spend money at the park again and encourage everyone I know to do the same.

reply to post by projectvxn


No one said all animals specifically. They are asking for the 5 killer whales at Seaworld to be given that right. As I said, there's no way to know what the court may do. It does have the power to act in the interest of the people and change things.

Yes whales need constitutional rights, and dolphins. They have their own languages and our abuse of this world and them is obscene. But not US constitution. Finland had one of the best in the world before EU.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Again, a decision like that, based on the construct of the 13th amendment will grant personhood to whales. And by extension could legally be interpreted to include all animals.

No judge is going to consider these ramifications and rule in favor of PETA.

reply to post by projectvxn

By the same reasoning, why should a corporation enjoy the same rights as a human, ie, a natural person? The law is an ass that needs taming and correction. Whether that is legal or not is irrelevant. We are not the only important thing on this planet. Any other attitude just reeks of...speciesism.

PS Perhaps some of you might enjoy watching a docu film (Hollywood professionally made and narrated by Joachim Phoenix and Persia White) called Earthlings. Now I thought I was a man but I could only get to the 30 minute mark of this docu and then the tears were running down my face, yes I was crying like a baby and had to turn it off, I just could not watch anymore without trying and failing to push my hand through the screen of my monitor. Earthlings are technically all animals that live on planet Earth. It just reinforced my ideas and leaves me to my vegetarianism. (I don't eat much fish at all even though I'm technically a pescetarian I avoid tuna) It has an 8.5 imdb rating which many regular movies never reach. I will try to watch the rest one day. When I'm feeling brave.

www.imdb.com...

reply to post by projectvxn


That's not even close to true. They can grant those rights however they see fit.

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.

source

If a corporation can be a person, and it doesn't even have a pulse, why not a whale?

reply to post by Evolutionsend


That would set a legal precedent effectively giving animals people rights. Would make it harder to eat my bacon if the pig had equal rights and protections. The cows family wrapping my seats and steering wheel could sue me. If you have a pet it could then be called a slave.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by projectvxn

 

That's not even close to true. They can grant those rights however they see fit.

In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.

source

edit on 25-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)

Really?

Equal Protection Clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If they are granted personhood by judicial decree then explain why they wouldn't receive the same Constitutional protections?

reply to post by projectvxn


They aren't asking for every animal to get those rights. Just five specific whales. They do not have to expand that to include all animals.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Ok, then by your logic corporations shouldn't have personhood because the case only emphasized Southern Pacific Railroad Company.

reply to post by projectvxn

Probably because it would be impossible for any law enforcement to enforce such ridiculousness.

no it wouldnt, it doesnt take a genius to work out the differnce between humane and inhumane.. humans need to start taking responsibility for the pain and suffering they inflict on animals.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

this doesnt say it is specific to humans so it could apply to any living or non living object

reply to post by projectvxn

the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person.

That is what they decided as a result of that case. If the supreme court decides that only these five whales get those rights, then that means only these five whales get those rights.

reply to post by projectvxn

Any corporation should never have been granted the same rights as a flesh being. Its ludicrous and imho criminal. What doss a company do when it does "serious wrong"? It possibly replaces its Director and continues its business, and maybe, just maybe, pays a small fine. Small, when compared to the (often large and global) profits it makes. Just because something is legal or lawful, does not and often never makes it "right". Just like war.

PS What happens to a human being when it "does wrong"? Yup, we go to prison....

reply to post by ShortMemory


Yeah let's just twist the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean. That's how we get what we want

Are you serious? Just because it doesn't mention person in ONE stipulation of the US Constitution, that means it can apply to anything?

That makes little sense.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by ShortMemory

 

Yeah let's just twist the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean. That's how we get what we want

Are you serious? Just because it doesn't mention person in ONE stipulation of the US Constitution, that means it can apply to anything?

That makes little sense.

i dont really understand what your trying to fight for?
if you are for defending the american spirit or something along these lines
wouldnt it be the american spirit to defend all living things and to treat everything equally?
wasnt that what the constitution was created for? equality?

i think its pretty obvious that the constitution does have loopholes and if they wanted it to apply only to humans it would say that. your defending the constitution but not respecting what is written?

reply to post by projectvxn


One of the things that the supreme court is supposed to do, is to make sure that the people are getting what they actually want, as long as what they want doesn't go against the constitution. The supreme court decision can be reversed in congress at a later date. What they're trying to do, is the whole idea behind the system. I'm sorry but the supreme court isn't there to worship the constitution, they're there to make sure that it's working as intended.