Animals have no moral obligation or duty since those are things that exist as ideas in human consciousness.
Some argue that "rights" are reserved for humans only, others would say that since humans have invented "rights" that we have the burden to protect creatures since they do not have a voice.
The Inherent right is to self-govern
It's against the law because: IT IS WRONG. People make laws for a reason, to prevent wrongdoings, crimes and hurting others. Abusing animals is definitely immoral, unjust and wrong (Abuse of people is against the law, so why shouldn't animals be too?). It's like abusing an innocent child who can't speak out for themselves for no reason.Also, even if it wasn't against the law, it is still wrong and shouldn't be done...Non-human animals have no inherent rights. IF animals had rights: what moral obligations do they have?. That there is no moral obligation makes it abundantly obvious that non human animals have no inherent rights.Laws NEVER prevent action.
Rights are what you are entitled to, depending on where you are, and obligation is what you are obliged to do, ei. what you have to do regarding those rights, for example, children have a right to be loved, but their obligation is to be respective of others.
Naturel Rights
obligation and duties of state, remuniciation of citizenship, deprivation of citizenship
If the Philippine Constitution mandates the Bill of Rights of the Filipino people, what is also our reciprocal obligation to the State?
I can't agree with you. Why you have your rights without obligation ?
Some celebrity activists are Bob Barker, Betty White, Paul McCartney, Angelina Jolie.
Taxes, jury duty, voting and many more!
Step-parents have no inherent rights. You should consult with an attorney.
State's rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights expresses the inherent rights of human beings. The United Nations adopted this declaration in 1948 to protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens from member states.