Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings

Intro: I understand how the animal rights being discussed in this debate excludes political/economic rights including but not limited to: voting, abortion, jobs/pay etc... Pro hasn't stated many specifics, but what I can deduct is that he is lobbying for animals to have the rights to life. This would include abolishing any sort of killing of animals, accept when the animal may pose a threat, similar to humans threatening other humans. Also I may assume he is lobbying for an animal version of autonomy, which would prevent us from neutering/spaying and other things relating to animals bodies. One more note, I don't endorse violence against animals. Just because I don't think they deserve the same rights doesn't mean I enjoy killing/inflicting pain/abusing them. It's not that I don't enjoy animals or appreciate their beauty, it's just I don't think that they warrant the same treatment/rights as a human. Arguments: 1.) Animals aren't active participants in our society. Rights are a concept made by man. If you believe in religion you may have a different origin of your concept of rights, but if not, rights are basically a concept derived by man. There is no baseline for rights. We have just created rights country by country to control people and their actions. Rights differ country to country. In China they kill babies, because of the one child policy. [1]. In some places around the world, baby girls are killed just based on gender (known as "gendercide"). [2]. We can see from these that rights don't have a baseline, and aren't universal. They aren't law to everyone. In the US, we give rights to contributing, beneficial, members of our society, AKA humans. All humans have the ability and potential to talk, walk and contribute. Animals cannot converse with us. They will do nothing to contribute, and will not be appreciative. They cannot understand what they are being presented with. When people enter our society, they are bound by these rights and laws and are expected to abide by laws and therefore receive rights. Animals have no concept of this, so why should they be given any privileges that aren't already given to them? Animals cannot obey commands beyond simple actions and will not be benefit society any further than they already have. So, we know that animals have not contributions to make further than already made, thus there is no reason to grant them more rights to give them opportunities which can't be abided by or appreciated. These animals can't knowingly be part of a working society, and since rights become relevant in a society, the rights shouldn't be extended to them. With rights, comes responsibility, animals can't fulfill any responsibility. 2.) It would destroy our economy to give animals rights. If we couldn't kill animals, it would drastically affect the economy of the US. Let's take for example Perdue Farms. They are a massive company producing close to 60 million pounds of chicken annually. They have approximately 19,000 employees. More than 6 billion a year in revenue. [3.]. If animals were given rights, all of that money would be down the drain. 19,000 people would be out of work. These people have families to feed, mortgages to pay, possibly student loans to pay off. 19,000 jobs, gone. And this is just one company. Tyson Chicken, produces poultry, beef and pork. A multi million dollar company with over 115,000 employees. [4]. How can't you justify taking away the jobs of all these people who must pay bills and for a child's education? These are just two companies who have 130,000 jobs and over 6 billion in revenue annually. Only two companies. Perdue is also on the Forbes top 100 private companies in the US. [5]. Tyson has also donated 78 million dollars of food charitably to hunger/disaster relief. [4]. Hillshire Brands is a company largely focusing on meat products. They employ another 9,000 people and generate close to 4 billion in revenue a year. [6]. National Beef Packing Company is large producer of beef. They have close to 9,000 employees and 7.5 billion in revenue. [7]. Across only 4 companies, we have witnessed around 150,000 job opportunities with over 22 billion in revenue in certain time periods. There are hundreds of more companies that rely on meat production, and giving animals rights would cause almost all of these companies to go belly up. Put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and destroy these companies. 3.) Food shortages. Besides putting all of these individuals out of jobs, we would see a large shortage of food in the U.S. In 2012 poultry and meat production reached over 90 billion pounds of meat. Meat and poultry is Americas largest agriculture segment. [8]. If we where to give animals rights, we would eliminate Americas largest agricultural segment, and by doing so reduce Americas amounts of food by 90 billion pounds a year. Gone. All of it gone. In 2013 almost 50 million Americans lived in food insecure households. [9]. 15 million children lived in food insecure households in 2012. [10]. I understand not all of this is due to food shortages, but if we where to eliminate Americas largest agricultural segment, these numbers of hungry Americans will certainly rise. How can we afford to cause hunger, job loss, and economic insecurity for a large society just for the sake of animals? Citations: [1]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://www.economist.com... [3]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [5]. http://www.forbes.com... [6]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [7]. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [8]. https://www.meatinstitute.org... [9]. http://www.feedingamerica.org... [10]. http://www.feedingamerica.org...