Re: disagree too.

Babies are not. Some adult humans are not - through accident, senility, or deep retardation.

No, they're not, but we have an overriding vested interest in extending the Social Contract to them. I would also argue that we have an overriding vested interest in not extending it to all animals.

Except we don't eat mosquitos, hippos and anacondas, who DO eat us. We eat cows, chicken, ducks, pigs, tuna, salmon - who don't eat us, not because they can't, but because they won't.

The principle is the same though. You took my point way to literally. The broad point is, if a species cannot participate in the Social Contract, then they have no rights to be protected under it. Now, we may extend some rights or protections to other species for a variety of reasons that suit our needs, but not because of the primary motivation under which we extend rights to humans.

Antis already did. Have you eaten any antis today?

Antis can change and become moral. Pigs cannot, at least not at the individual level. It is possible pigs may some day become intelligent enough as a species to participate in the Social Contract. Until then, we can eat them if we like. At any rate, once again, we have an overriding vested interest in covering humans (with a few exceptions in particular instances) by the Social Contract.

Unconvincing all around. At best, White Male Landowner logic.

Exactly what a moral absolutist (albeit a hypocritical one) would say.