[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
All of the people you mention, still have responsibilities, even in law

The unemployed person has the responsibility to prove they are actively seeking employment to continue to receive JSA

Er... no. What about the unemployed person who just doesn't want a job?

The leech, has a responsibility to not break the law if they are not actively seeking employment like the first example. Their friends may ask them to do things. At the very basic level he has the responsibility to get themselves dressed in the morning, or noon whenever they get up.

Ha! Responsibility not to break the law? Well then, kids have the responsibility not to break the law too! Animals have the responsibility not to attack anyone. And responsibility to get dressed? Kids have that responsibility too! And animals have the responsibility to be playful and happy bringing pleasure to their caretakers.

The perpson inheriting money may have the responsibility to pay inheritance tax and may still have other responsibilities, like getting washed and dressed.

Paying an inheritance tax? Getting washed and dressed? Doesn't sound like too much responsibility. And what if that person doesn't get washed or dressed? (Even though most of them do.)

Responsibilities need not be things you would add to your CV

The quote, "No rights without responsibilities" is only half of the proposition.

It disputes primarily the existence of animal rights, because an animal can have no responsibilities in the human world.

Well, with all the "responsibilities" you've just listed, animals have quite a few.

(It could be argued that in the wild, some adult animals in animal groups will be doing things for the rest of the group, like the lioness hunting the food for the pride, and therefore have responsibilities with in lion-kind that just means they have a right to a position with in the pride, so perhaps this proposition may still hold in the animal kingdom)

Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.

However, responsibilities are encumbered onto those who come into contact with animals, either on an ongoing basis or a casual basis, to care for them and not mistreat them. Should an animal be destined for the pot, the slaughterer has a responsibility to kill the animal in a humane a manner as possible. Whether we should be eating animals is a totally different argument

Yes, and if I decide to murder my neighbor, I have a responsibility to make his death quick and painless.

Likewise with young children, the idea of "Children's rights" is disputed from the moral perspective, rather than the statute rights mentioned earlier. It could be argued that these statute rights are not really rights but responsibilities to be imposed on those who have a caring role for children.

What about kids who are emancipated? In some countries, kids as young as three must care for themselves and prove themselves to be quite capable.

Children however must be cared for and not mistreated, and the responsibility for that will fall on the carer.

So although according to this moral argument, animals and young children do not have any rights, including the most basic one the right to life, as they have no responsibilities, it is not open season on them, as there are adults, with rights who have the responsibility to protect them, care for them and keep them from harm.

No animal or young baby is put at risk by this assertion of no rights without responsibilities, because somewhere their welfare is the responsibility of someone.

So you're saying that kids should not have the right to life? People should be allowed to murder them? I just hope you never have kids. If you do, I feel extremely sorry for them.