> It appears as if <GBurch1@aol.com> wrote:
> |As for the former, one first has to have a clear idea of what the term
> |"rights" means. I find it hard to conceive of a "right" without an entity
> |capable of asserting that right, so I don't find it useful to speak of
> |"rights" in connection with animals that can't at least let out some kind
> + of
> |squeak of protest. However, with that first squeak comes some minimal
> So a human without language skills and voice lacks rights in your model.
> Are these humans to be treated as animals, including owned (slavery) and
> allowed to be terminated at will, too?
We are obviously talking on a species by species basis. Moreover the only human beings that I am aware of who cannot communicate on a consistent basis at a minimally acceptable level are in a coma, are severely autistic or in the last stages of Alzheimers. Almost all of these people will, at some point in their lives, be able to state their personhood, even the autistic individual, given the proper treatment. The intelligence of man at his most degraded level is still far above that of any animal, excepting the complete vegetable. Sure, some animals can be trained, but fery few learn anything on their own, and extremely few remember what they learn.