Two Rutgers law professors say that owning pets is immoral and would be considered torture if humans were forced to endure the same treatment.

Although Gary Francione and Anna Charlton live with six rescued dogs, the couple calls their abused animals refugees, and says they have the right to be free regardless of their quality of life with humans.

"Although we love them very much, we strongly believe that they should not have existed in the first place," the two wrote in an essay in a digital publication on Aeon. "We oppose domestication and pet ownership because these violate the fundamental rights of animals."

Francione and Charlton say animal rights should line up with human rights so pets are protected from being treated as "replaceable resources."

"When we talk about animal rights, we are talking primarily about one right: the right not to be property," the essay "The Case Against Pets" reads. "We all reject human chattel slavery. That is not to say that it doesn't still exist. It does. But no one defends it."

The essay argues against the concept of human treatment of animals, claiming that the way human owners care for their pets would be torture if people endured the same treatment.

"However 'humanely' we treat animals, they are still subjected to treatment that, were humans involved, would be torture."

The couple also takes a stance against aquariums, zoos, scientific testing, or any other way humans have domesticated animals for their own use.

"To say that an animal has a right not to be used as property is simply to say that we have a moral obligation to not use animals as things, even if it would benefit us to do so," the couple writes.

Craig McCarthy may be reached at CMcCarthy@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @createcraig. Find NJ.com on Facebook.