Liberals, do weeds, snakes, and viruses deserve human rights?

Question

http://www.discovery.org/a/7951

According to these leftists in the article, they do.

"These radical agendas have now been overtaken by an extreme environmentalism that seeks to--and this is not a parody--grant equal rights to nature. Yes, nature; literally and explicitly. "Nature rights" have just been embodied as the highest law of the land in Ecuador's newly ratified constitution pushed by the country's hard-leftist president, Rafael Correa, an acolyte of Hugo Chávez.

The new Ecuadorian constitution reads:

Persons and people have the fundamental rights guaranteed in this Constitution and in the international human rights instruments. Nature is subject to those rights given by this Constitution and Law.

What does this co-equal legal status between humans and nature mean? Article 1 states:

Nature or Pachamama [the Goddess Earth], where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.
This goes way beyond establishing strict environmental protections as a human duty. It is a self-demotion of humankind to merely one among the billions of life forms on earth--no more worthy of protection than any other aspect of the natural world.

Viruses are part of nature. So, too, are bacteria, insects, trees, weeds, and snails. These and the rest of Ecuador's flora and fauna all now have the constitutional and legally enforceable right to exist, persist, and regenerate their vital cycles.

The potential harm to human welfare seems virtually unlimited. Take, for example, a farmer who wishes to drain a swamp to create more tillable land to better support his family. Now, the swamp has equal rights with the farmer, as do the mosquitoes, snakes, pond scum, rats, spiders, trees, and fish that reside therein.

And since draining the swamp would unquestionably destroy "nature" and prevent it from "existing" and "persisting," one can conceive of the farmer--or miners, loggers, fishermen, and other users and developers of natural resources--being not only prevented from earning his livelihood, but perhaps even charged with oppressing nature."

Answer 1

It looks like maybe some mistakes might have been made in the translation. Or in our understanding of their culture. It's pretty hard for us to sit here and guess what those who penned that actually intend.



##

Answer 2

Well this is what you get when you let I guess murders write laws.

The H1N1 virus has a right to be in your bodies people, if it kills you... that's it's right. xD



Some crazy *** people messing around with the world nowadays. 0.0



I wouldn't be surprised if it's not just another one of the United Nations governments they've put in. They're constantly using the World Bank to kill these countries governments, and replacing them...

There is a chance this has something to do with them, they're VERY into the nature thing with the whole Wildlands project, Agenda 21, Rio summit in 1994 (pardon me, it was 1992)... Very strange stuff indeed.



Although there hasn't been any revolution in that country, they have a strong presence in these countries.

Answer 3

"Atheists: Where do human rights come from?" From people, generally. "And more importantly, isn't it just the opinion of whoever is talking when they declare what basic human rights ought to be?" Yes, it is. Human rights are subjective. Personally I think that people should be afforded equal rights, regardless of factors such as race. Most people in the modern world seem to share that opinion. A few hundred years ago, many people (regardless of religion) seemed to think that it was acceptable to enslave others of a different race. That they were wrong is just my opinion, not a matter of fact.

Answer 4

So basically anti-biotics would be against the law because they kill bacteria. Crazy. The thing that I read into this is that government has just extended its power 20 fold in Ecuador because it now has domain over and enforces protection of...every living thing on earth.

Answer 5

Let me clarify this. Swamps are major producers of methane and so are cattle deer and people. Of all these, people have the least right to produce methane. This is why at www.ifyouareastupidliberalucanshoveitupyourass.com we highlight this fact because all LIEbrals are self loathers who actually believe that we should be least and frogs should be first.

Answer 6

Just don't live in Ecuador, Venezuela or Bolivia. See? Problem solved.

Answer 7

If it takes money away from hard-working Americans, then YES

Answer 8

Let the loggers sue the swamp .

Answer 9

I only read your rant far enough to see that you are incorrectly equating the granting of rights with the granting of EQUAL rights. Do you realize how dumb you look?

Answer 10

Giving "Nature" constitutional rights seem as mind boggling as giving "Corporations" constitutional rights.

Answer 11

No - they deserve weed, snake and virus rights accordingly.

Answer 12

If it pisses you off more then yes they do.



-Bill

Answer 13

Just to piss you off, SURE!

Answer 14

IF-they are granted to you why not.....BTW...monger much?