If foreign terrorists are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution, which apply only to lawful combatants and American citizens, respectively, why shouldn’t human rights be granted to plants? After PETA et al. have made meat illegal, next on the agenda will be eating any form of plant life. It won’t be a problem for liberals; they can subsist on sheer sanctimonious lunacy:
Writing in The New York Times recently, Michael Marder, author of the forthcoming Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life, calls for “plant liberation.”
“[T]he commendable desire to ameliorate the condition of animals, currently treated as though they were meat-generating machines, does not justify strategic argumentation in favor of the indiscriminate consumption of plants. The same logic ultimately submits to total instrumentalization the bodies of plants, animals and humans by setting them over and against an abstract and rational mind.”
Therefore, he concludes, “the struggles for the emancipation of all instrumentalized living beings should be fought on a common front.”
That is, anything that is alive gets human rights. But why stop at things that are alive?
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund argues that greenery does have interests — and rights. The Pennsylvania-based nonprofit works with communities around the world to “craft and adopt new laws that change the status of natural communities and ecosystems from being regarded as property under the law to being recognized as rights-bearing entities.” …
Under such a rights-based system of law, [Mari] Margil [of CELDF] says, “a river may be recognized as having the right to flow…”
However, human rights for children who have not yet passed completely out of the birth canal remain out of the question.
On tips from J and James McEnanly. Hat tip: NewsBusters.