Animals can be deserving of Personhood

Thank you for your last post. A. I have agreed with the right to life. Not persondhood and all it encompasses. Life: ---- Industries: The Pros logic is flawed. The Pro states that when child labor was outlawed, industries were forced to evolve to make up for the lost work force. However, what differentiates the two industries are the factors being changed. The textile industry lost child labor, not the textile being produced. The Meat industry in this case would be losing its product in the name of "protecting persons from immoral deaths". ---- In-Vitro meat: The answer to this problem is replacing raw meat with In-Vitro meat. However, the only way this would be possible is if it was a compatible product for the market it is now taking on. This is not currently the case and may not be so for decades. -- Cost: [1] "Given the current technology, it would cost $1 million to turn out a 250g piece of beef. " Large scale production of in vitro meat may require artificial growth hormones to be added to the culture for meat production. No procedure has been presented to produce large scale in vitro meat without the use of antibiotics to prevent bacterial infections. The cost to mass produce this type of food with the use of other costly chemicals. -- science: If in vitro meat turns out to be different in appearance, taste, smell, texture, or other factors, it may not be commercially competitive with conventionally produced meat. The lack of fat and bone may also be a disadvantage, for these parts make appreciable culinary contributions. Now regardless of all this, [2] kitchen meat incubators MAY allow homemakers to synthesize their own meat products; thus bringing a permanent end to meat markets and butches. Job losses linked to kitchen meat incubators may be neutralized somewhat by families starting their own home-based businesses around selling and manufacturing synthesized in vitro meat. This would transform the family unit from being strictly consumers into being prosumers; making money by selling their products to other families while spending that money on consumer goods and synthesized meat made by other families. However, there is a flaw with this idea. -- Econ: The meat industry is worth billions. The jobs which they encompass alone tops 3 million. Now because of the new "persons" All of these people are put out of business! The only ones who are capable of retaining a job are those who are qualified to deal with chemicals and growing these types of meat. Because of the "simplicity" of the growing process maybe a tenth of these people will be given a job if not only a fraction. People must ask themselves as a whole: is it worth ruining an entire portion of the economy to be able to say that these new persons are given a right to garenteed life. -- Status quo solves: Now obviously there are many animal rights activists and people who strive to keep animals from harms way. Endangerd animals are sympathized by billions of people. ------Liberty: --- Logic: Your right, there are certain rights that animals simply do not need. --- Status quo solves: Zoos currently circulate animals in their zoos, releasing them back into the wild every so many years. Zoos strive to make their habitats comforting, feed the inhabitants well, and keep them healthy. If anything, Zoo's are a beneficial check up for many animals which would otherwise die of other causes. Seeing as how arguments for liberty are very limited and in the case of animals very minute, I ask voters to please disregard either arguments on liberty from either the Pro or Con as they have become irrelevant to the debate. ----- Property: -- Status quo solves: What was wrong with the home they once came from? ?? Literally, national parks, forest reserves, etc. Current animal rights activists and preservation strive to give homes to vast majorities of animals. The Pro must define what he means by "homes" In conclusion, I have shown the impracticalities of giving inalienable rights to animals.