Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsp!ashby
From: ashby@uiucdcsp.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: animal vs human rights, morality
Message-ID: <3300001@uiucdcsp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 17:26:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsp.3300001
Posted: Tue Jan 29 17:26:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 01:59:39 EST
References: <232@usl.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:usl:-23200:uiucdcsp:3300001:000:841
Nf-From: uiucdcsp!ashby    Jan 29 16:26:00 1985

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.