Every Day We Act In Ways That

Even People Who Are Aware That The Traditional Family Farm Has Been Taken Over By Big Business Interests, And That Some Questionable Experiments Go On In Laboratories, Cling To A Vague Belief That Conditions Cannot Be Too Bad, Or Else The Government Or The Animal Welfare Societies Would Have Done Something About It.

Grain That Is Used To Feed Animals That End Up On Our Tables As Turkeys And Hams Could Have Gone To Feed Starving People.

I Don't Think There's Anything In The Compromise That Means That There's A Clash Of Ethics.

So Far As This Argument Is Concerned Nonhuman Animals And Infants And Retarded Humans Are In The Same Category; And If We Use This Argument To Justify Experiments On Nonhuman Animals We Have To Ask Ourselves Whether We Are Also Prepared To Allow Experiments On Human Infants And Retarded Adults; And If We Make A Distinction Between Animals And These Humans, On What Basis Can We Do It, Other Than A Bare-faced - And Morally Indefensible - Preference For Members Of Our Own Species?

Killing A Defective Infant Is Not Morally Equivalent To Killing A Person. Sometimes It Is Not Wrong At All.