Tell me this is a joke. Please.

This has got to be one of the most absurd things I've ever seen.

I'm all for animal rights in regards to prevention of abuse and neglect.  But this is not only going off the deep end, it's doing a cannonball into a crowded pool.  In other words, a stupid idea that will make some people laugh and some people angry.

I love my pets and consider them part of my family, but I have never afforded them the same level of status as the humans I live with.  That would be absurd. This lawsuit hinges on the belief that animals should be afforded the same protection and rights as minor children or wards of the state - that is, those who are deemed incapable of making their own decisions and/or caring for themselves.  That alone ought to get it thrown out of court.  This is not about animal abuse or neglect.  The entire point of the suit is to have animals legally recognized as having human rights.

I've yet to find a single shred of logic in any of PETA's arguments here.  (Of course, I'd be hard-pressed to find a single shred of logic in most things PETA does.)  If the world ever gets to the point where animals are recognized as having the same rights as humans, we will have a real-life Planet of the Apes on our hands.

We do have a responsibility to care for the animals we own, and not abandon, abuse, or neglect them.  We also have a responsibility to not treat feral animals cruelly, or hunt them for sport.  But I don't believe the very issue of animals in captivity is abusive, nor do I believe the issue of animals working in captivity is equal to slavery in any way.  Animals have worked for humans for centuries.  A few examples include sled dogs, herding dogs, oxen, horses, elephants and camels.  Is there really a difference between pulling a sled or a plow and jumping out of the water or waving a flipper?  Both are trained, perform on demand, and rewarded when the task is done.  They are fed, groomed, and receive medical attention.  Frankly, the only resemblance to slavery I can see is the "perform on demand" part, which is what you do yourself every day when you go to work.  So what these animals really have is a job, one where they are trained to complete a task that is within their capabilities to perform, rewarded for completion of that task, and provided steady nourishment and medical care.  By contrast, in the wild they must find and sometimes fight for sustenance and suffer physical ailments, some excruciatingly painful and fatal, with no real purpose except to repeatedly reproduce (which can be harmful enough to the females, to say nothing of the impact on the environment of overpopulation.) In captivity, at least, reproduction is controlled to prevent overpopulation, or in some cases, to sustain that very population from demise.

I also do not believe that zoos are institutions of torture, nor do I believe that hunting  (for food) and/or eating meat perpetuates animal cruelty, but those are discussions for another time. Back to the topic at hand:

Animals are not, and should not be, eligible to belong to the status of humanity.  The end.