Jasmine, I am completely in the same boat as you. I think that theone of the main points of this book, and class is to determine what has rights and what qualities does one need to have to have rights. It is hard for me to pinpoint those exact qualities, but I can agree with Rachels that it is the biographical and not biological life that makes a difference. Now, the definition of a biographical life is one that can easily be applied to humans. How do we measure the goals and memories of other animals? I believe that is where this definition is flawed, but we have to go off of something.

In regards to environmental rights, I believe that people are selfish and disregard nature. We have been given reasources through nature that we have abused and not respected. I believe it is not until crisis that people take action in matters that seem inconvenient for them. People have been destroying the planet, but only recently have we taken serious action to prevent the severity of the damages. This also reminds me of what we talked about in class. For something to have rights means that they have them regardless of social circumstances. It might be inconvenient for humans to give animals rights (to life), but their rights exist either way. My biggest issue with animal rights is the possibility of their killing from other non-human animals. It is hard to enforce animals' right to life when other species depend on them for survival as well. Did nature intend animals and humans to have a moral right to life?