Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People?

No ... the source of right or rights

A "right" or rights are derived from the specifics of who and what one is. No two individual human beings can be declared "the same", although they might certainly be called similar. It's likely they have similar rights, but cannot have the same rights. They are not the same and never can be if examined entirely. So too with other species. No two individuals within a species have the same rights, nor can individuals across species have same rights. Each life is different from the next and thus each "right" is different in its whole nature. Differences cannot be wished away. One may not want them to matter, however, what one wishes is rather irrelevant. In the real world, differences always matter and ought to. It matters greatly that no two lives are the same. This is what makes them "two" lives instead of simply one. What matters too is whether or not one recognizes the differences and takes them into consideration or ignores the differences thus disrespecting the truth at probable peril to oneself and others.

The primary right which is the foundation of all others is one's right to one's own life. A life, big or small, simple or complex, belongs to itself. It cannot, by right, belong to another, although another life may or may not be at liberty to possess it in some way. Whatever life it possesses is its property to do with as it wishes. There is dominion over self, but there cannot be dominion over anothers. This is not a right that is given or taken away. It is a fact born of that life itself. It is a right that exists with that life, neither existing before that life nor existing after the life which is it's basis is gone.

What is at issue and what is always at issue among us human beings either regarding ourselves and each other or members of other species is whether or not one is to be given the liberty to exercise the right of one's own life. Many varying reasons are marched out in favor or against such liberty - some with good factual information and consistent logic, most of it without. The most arguable reason for denying the liberty of another is the inescapable fact that one life must kill another to survive. To keep life, one must take life. This means that regardless how one feels about the right to life of another being - human or not - at some point one must decide to kill to survive or perish and be consumed. This particular law of nature cannot be circumvented for the sake of high-minded morality. Still, one is usually at liberty to postpone such decisions until absolutely necessary and one is usually at liberty to pick and choose which life must go and which will be preserved. What one must remember at such times is one has the right to live but cannot have a right to deprive another of the life they possess. Again, a life belongs to itself and cannot, by right, have a master. It is unavoidable that one must kill and often we find ourselves with such liberty just as all of the rest of life on Earth is at liberty to kill or not kill.

In this liberty to kill or not kill, yes, we and other animals are equal. No two, however, are equal in their willingness and skill in limiting or ending the life of another. There are many with an overabundance of such. As for me, though I am at liberty to impose myself on many other lives, I choose to exercise such liberty as conservatively as I'm able to manage. I opt to give as many lives - human or other - the freedom to live as I'm presented the opportunity to decide. It is not the right of those lives to continue living by their own determination that comes into my mind. That right is unquestionable.

I exercise my rights liberally, however, I exercise my liberties conservatively.

That's compassion.