When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was first published, in 1948, world leaders finally had a concise, functional document with which they could agree on the proper and ethical treatment of our species. It overlooked cultural rituals and beliefs to ensure humane treatment of the populations governed by the United Nations.

It raised awareness about genital mutilation, torture, and slavery around the world, and helped put a stop to many of those practices.

Its writers thought a lot about the "rights" part of the equation, but not so much the "human." After all, isn't that self-explanatory?

Not according to the Spanish government, which has just passed a bill granting apes many of the same rights as human beings. The movement began 15 years ago as a fringe, far-left animal rights initiative, but over the years it gained momentum and supporters, until late June, when what began as a dream became law.

While apes will still be housed in zoos, their treatment and conditions will be improved. It is now illegal to harm or kill an ape unless in self-defense.

This clearly raises more questions than it answers. Why apes and not horses? What about llamas, chickens, and most pointedly (for Spain, anyway), bulls?

When slaves were first granted partial human rights in the US, they were to be considered 3/5 human -- that is, not quite animals, but not really people either. The essential debate was over whether or not Africans possessed a soul, and the same question arises regarding the treatment of animals.

Is this just a case of granting rights to animals that most closely resemble us in DNA and demeanor? We treat cows with greater humanity than we do chickens, or even calves. Is that because by the time a cow is fully grown, it's more "human" than when it's a newborn?

I certainly don't fault Spain for this decision. I just wonder about its implications. We may have come a long way from a racist past, but, to make up a word, aren't we now just being specieist?

[Image Credit: Aaron Logan on Wikimedia Commons]