If we have a duty not to kill sentient beings, what do we do about wild predators? Do we intervene to save the gazelle from the lion? Most rights theorists (Regan) say no: rights are negative (duty not to harm) but not positive (duty to prevent harm in the wild). This is seen as an inconsistency by critics.
As societal values and scientific understanding continue to evolve, the future of animal welfare and rights holds promise: If we have a duty not to kill
The NhRP is arguing that cognitively complex animals (great apes, elephants, dolphins) have a right to bodily liberty. If a court grants habeas corpus to a chimp, that chimp becomes a legal "person." This would collapse the property status. If we have a duty not to kill