Letter: Animal rights: reducing suffering should be our first concern

When reformers sought to abolish slavery, extend the franchise, introduce state welfare provision, liberalise censorship laws and promote equal rights, doubtless many opponents said, "Where will it end?" Those today who seek freedom of information, prov i sion for the disabled and less sexual repression encounter similar questions. It is unsurprising, therefore, to meet an animal rights' objection in terms of "Where do we begin and end?" (The Wrongs of Animal Rights, 8 1 95).

A question is not an argument, however, and an unanswered or even unanswerable question may be no stumbling block at all. If not knowing where to end is sufficient to block rights' ascriptions to animals, consistency points to unacceptable consequences.

Unsure of morally relevant dividing lines within the fertilised egg/embryo/foetus/infant continuum, uncertain of the experiential status of different species and unable to tell in some cases whether "no" means no, we could justify infanticide, cruelty t o animals and the prohibition of sexual intercourse. Where will it, indeed, all end?

Peter Cave London NW3