Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Personhood Was Re: Abortion debate
Message-ID: <2950@wpg.com>
Date: 22 Aug 90 03:01:27 GMT
References: <2935@wpg.com> <1990Aug16.202622.8384@noao.edu> <2940@wpg.com> <11397@cs.utexas.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: WP Group, POB 306, Metairie, LA 70004
Lines: 22

In article <2947@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Personhood is based on an individual's mind, David, not on his diet.  
rl> 
rl> The fact that either a feline or human hunter may eat a human, a 
rl> chimp, a goat or a cantelope [yes, tigers eat cantelopes] is 
rl> neither a reflection on the diner's personhood, nor is it a 
rl> reflection on the personhood of the objects on the menu.  

In article <11397@cs.utexas.edu>, turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
rt> It should be noted in allocating rights to animals that some
rt> animals are obligate carnivores.  Cats do eat vegetable matter.
rt> (For some reason, domestic cats seem to prefer grass.)  But they
rt> can NOT survive on it.  Cats cannot synthesize from a vegetarian
rt> diet certain fatty acids that are required for mammalian survival.  
rt> These they obtain directly from their animal prey.

Absolutely.  But how does diet have a bearing on personhood?  Are 
you suggesting that tigers and Burger King patrons aren't 
persons because they're meat eaters?  :-) 
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ