[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther

Pardon my laughter. Would you be so kind as to provide some sort of reference for this? I'm not buying it.

What I have found on Google so far

This is getting off topic, the connection of rights and responsibilities.

What is overlooked is that cognisant people like us have responsibility to ensure the welfare of children and animals. This argument does not declare open hunting season.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
What I have found on Google so far

This is getting off topic, the connection of rights and responsibilities.

What is overlooked is that cognisant people like us have responsibility to ensure the welfare of children and animals. This argument does not declare open hunting season.

I couldn't find where on that page it said that plants could feel pain.

In this case I'm not really sure what the argument does declare. If adults have rights, and we have the responsibility to give children and animals rights, then won't children and animals have rights if we have properly carried out our responsibilities?

[Sticks]

Today on BBC Radio 4's Law in Action they were discussing this

Link

What they were talking about is that children and animals may not have rights, but they have protections

As I said earlier, saying children and animals do not have rights because they have no responsibilities does not mean open season on them as they have protections.