severethattheinfantcanneverbeanymorethana“human
vegetable,” unable to talk, recognize other people, act
independentlyofothers,ordevelopasenseofself-awareness.
Theparentsoftheinfant,realizingthattheycannothopefor
anyimprovementintheirchild’sconditionandbeinginany
case unwilling to spend, or ask the state to spend, the
thousandsofdollarsthatwouldbeneededannuallyforproper
care of the infant, ask the doctor to kill the infant painlessly.
Should the doctor do what the parents ask? Legally, the
doctor shouldnot, and in this respect the law reflects the
sanctityoflifeview.Thelifeofeveryhumanbeingissacred.
Yetpeoplewhowouldsaythisabouttheinfantdonotobject
to the killing ofnonhuman animals. How canthey justify
theirdifferentjudgments?Adultchimpanzees,dogs,pigs,and
membersofmanyotherspeciesfarsurpassthebrain-damaged
infantintheirabilitytorelatetoothers,actindependently,be
self-aware,andanyothercapacitythatcouldreasonablybe
said to give value to life. With the most intensive care
possible,someseverelyretardedinfantscanneverachievethe
intelligencelevelofadog.Norcanweappealtotheconcern
of the infant’s parents, since they themselves, in this
imaginaryexample(andinsomeactualcases)donotwantthe
infantkeptalive.Theonlythingthatdistinguishestheinfant
fromtheanimal,intheeyesofthosewhoclaimithasa“right
to life,”isthat itis,biologically, amember ofthespecies
Homosapiens,whereaschimpanzees,dogs,andpigsarenot.
Buttousethisdifferenceasthebasisforgrantingarightto
lifetotheinfantandnotto theotheranimals is,ofcourse,
purespeciesism.^14 Itisexactlythekindofarbitrarydifference
thatthemostcrudeandovertkindofracistusesinattempting
to justify racial discrimination.