On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:20:46 -0500, Bill wrote:

On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 07:31:32 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't believe it makes sense to consider non-sentient entities as
having rights. You need to understand the concept of rights to have
rights.

You need to be able to understand the concept of rights to appreciate
that you have them; but you need not understand the concept of rights
them to have rights. After all, a newly born infant, or comatose
person, does not have the capacity to understand much of anything - yet
they have rights under our (U.S.) law.

Sure. But I would not call those "rights" (yes, I know the law does).
I recognize them as legal obligations placed on people to protect
those unable to protect themselves. This could apply to animals, as
well.