In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> They held rights the same moment moral agents existed
> to observe them. Obviously, they don't hold rights against
> each other because a right can only be held against a
> moral agent rather than a moral patient.

Since, I did respond and in fairness, I think the onus is on you to make
your case since it was you who made assertions in the positive. To
present Hume's opinion (appeal to authority) and that you use "well
understood" (appeal to popularity) is not a good reason to simply accept
the argument.

I don't consider animals to have rights. I recognize that the human laws
in some jurisdictions provide some protections to some animals in some
circumstances. This is quite different than to make any categorical
statement of rights or rights belonging to animals.

Can you establish your case that there is a moral right for animals not
to be killed. Can you be specific if your perspective is subjective or
absolute in its application.