Life's Intrinsic Value

Kohak presents a touchy subject for debate when he addresses animal rights and the responsibility (or lack thereof) that humans have toward animals. I have to concede that, though the analogy is rather disturbing, Kohak's comparison of human attitudes toward animals and the Nazi attitudes toward Jews is eerily accurate. So often, animals are given the status of, well, "only an animal" rather than being on par with human life. Why is it that humans devalue animal life, rather than seeing its value as life in itself? If life has intrinsic value, then animals shouldn't be designated to "only."It's arguable that Kohak is right on target when he claims that humans are simply specieist and this is perhaps understandable, given the little contact with many animal species we have today. The extent of our contact is largely limited to dogs, cats, and the occasional hamster or bird (oh, and we can't forget fish). This could account for our repulsion to the idea of eating dog, but the unflinching acceptance at consuming pork chops (and, by the way, pigs have been found to be more intelligent than dogs. They have the cognitive understanding of two year olds in most cases).
Even when pets are considered, there are still many who designate animal life as less than that of humans. I suppose that even this can be understood, for humans lack the ability to relate to so many other species. We tend to feel compassion for those who are most like us, hence the aversion many have to killing cute, fuzzy mammals and the lack of inhibition at killing something like bugs or fish. They're just so far removed from us "evolutionally". An may give the argument that animal life isn't as valuable, for animals are obviously "less intelligent." They don't speak, they don't build, they don't and can't do so many of the things that humans can do. But one must also consider that not all humans have the capacity to do those things either. Few would doubt that a mentally disabled child has just the same right to life as a normally functioning child. Whether it be asberger's or down syndrome, to even degenerative diseases like tay-sachs, few would argue that those lives are valuable. Now consider that the orangutan could possibly be more communicative, more innovative, more productive than the human vegetable. There are many opposed to euthanasia, but far fewer opposed to animal testing. Is one truly more utilitarian than another?
Even if humans were truly superior (which, I highly doubt, given our almost universal handicap when dumped out in the wilderness. Honestly, if it came down to survival in the wild, humans would fall more than a few rungs on the totem pole) it shouldn't give us the right to indistcriminantly mistreat nonhuman life. Kohak says it best when he claims that just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Assuming that we were superior beings, we are obligated to use the judgement that other beings lack to be above such things as cruelty. We know better and should act accordingly.