Humanity’s endeavours for increased human rights are always within the forefront of conversation. Last year The United States joined 21 other countries in legalising same-sex marriage, Fiji became the 99th country to abolish the death penalty, and the discussion on women’s rights is becoming evermore deliberated. Yet, how can the deservingness of moral rights be distinguished between humans and non-human animals, or even other life forms? A common response would focus on human intelligence and social and emotional aptness as a contrast to non-human animals. Yet, as Peter Singer has discussed, there are humans outside of the normal paradigm of reasoning ability, normal emotional responses, and intellectual capacities. Termed ‘marginal-humans’, these humans are argued to include infants, young children, the severely mentally retarded, and those in coma. Singer proposes a dilemma: “If we do not reject the belief that it is wrong to kill severely intellectually disabled humans for food, then we must reject the belief that it is all right to kill animals at the same level of mental development for the same purpose”. …