Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!cjk
From: cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: animal vs human rights, morality
Message-ID: <584@ccice2.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 19:43:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice2.584
Posted: Sat Feb  2 19:43:43 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 06:58:28 EST
References: <232@usl.UUCP> <3300001@uiucdcsp.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 22

> In his note on animal rights and abortion, Arceneaux (jla) states
> that the only difference between humans and other animals is their
> relative intelligence.  After stating this premise, he then rambles
> on, seemingly in favor of animal rights.  However, I do not accept
> his premise, and neither would many others.  For me, the difference
> is that man possesses a soul, and animals do not.  Thus even the 
> least intelligent human (however that is measured) is inherently
> more "valuable" than the most intelligent "lower" animal.
> 
> Since this is net.abortion, and not net.animal_rights, I won't
> babble on about animal rights or the lack thereof.  
> 
> As far as devising moral yardsticks, how about deciding whether or
> not a fetus possesses a soul.  This is unlikely to change many minds
> however, especially among those who don't believe in souls.  

As much as I might agree with you on many points, I have to argue
this one.  Many parents don't buy the child any shoes until after 
it is born.  Are you proposing that these children be killed?

-- 
Wally Ball