Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings

IntroAs stated in rd. 2, equal rights means equal consideration for one’s interests. Nonhumans have interests such as the interest in living and not suffering, but also species-specific interests in certain types of living conditions, social relationships etc.Con seems to look at the question solely from a US standpoint. Even though I am European, I do not mind rebutting US-specific arguments, because I am well aware of how the US animal industry works. However, Con seems to insist on examining the question from a strictly practical, anthropocentric viewpoint considering solely the US. This implies that the more profound, ethical and global implications of the question have not quite been comprehended.Rebuttals1) Like all concepts, the concept of rights is indeed created by man (concept: something conceived in the mind; an abstract or generic idea generalised from particular instances. [1] To have a concept, there needs to be a mind).This, however, does not mean that rights cannot be considered universal, objective or independent from man. Sometimes concepts are created to structure and fathom phenomena and objects that exist independetly. Con seems to be confusing rights with laws. For example, he states that “We have just created rights country by country to control people and their actions.” Like the definition made in rd. 1 indicates, rights are not necessarily based on laws, but can be based on moral principles, for example.The sanctity of life and the right to life are commonly accepted principles. To someone who accepts them, it should be irrelevant whether in parts of the world people are killing babies or anything else. If one accepts the principle(s), it would be contradictory to justify killing by appealing to socities that do not follow said principle(s).“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 … .”Based on the claim that rights are given to those with the ability to be “beneficial” and to “talk, walk and contribute”, we should not give rights to babies. You might say that babies will grow up to be contributing members of society (although not all of them will), but what about severely disabled persons who will never be able to “talk, walk [or] contribute”. Is it okay to abuse and kill these individuals?Con’s arguments are plagued with sociocentrism. He keeps insisting that animals cannot “benefit society”. He says, “animals can’t knowingly be part of a working society”. He does not seem to realise that not everything is about OUR society (this is especially ironic since I do not even belong to his society). Nonhuman animals form their OWN societies [2] [3]. What is it that gives us the right to shatter the ones they have formed and enslave them in order to better our societies, in the way that Americans (and others) shattered African societies and enslaved their members?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.” (italics mine)Again, appealing to possible negative effects on the US economy is not a valid justification for destroying other societies and individuals. However, for the sake of argument, I will treat it as one for the rest of rebuttal 2.“If animals were given rights, all of that money would be down the drain. 19,000 people would be out of work.”If people did not consume animal products, they would consume something else: plant-based products. In order to produce these products, countless workers would be employed (in positions where, perhaps, annual turnover rates would not exceed 100 %, which they do in poultry plants. [4] Guess why.). In other words, there would be little to no loss to employment. The same applies to the money. People would still need to buy groceries, and they would pay for them. (Side note: I never thought I would hear wealth inequality (i.e. the fact that Perdue Farms gets 6 billion dollars a year whereas local family farmers get little to none) used as an argument against animal rights.)3) The argument from food shortages is a common misinformed argument. Abolishing the animal industry would not create food shortages. Quite the contrary. 95 % of oat production and 80 % of corn production is consumed by farmed animals. [5] [6] [7] These are merely examples. Similar percentages apply to soy, for example. According to Diet For A New America by John Robbins, if Americans reduced their meat intake by 10 %, 100 million people could be adequately fed. [6]The animal industry does not prevent food shortages or malnutrition. It creates them.Citations[1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...[3] http://bit.ly...[4] http://bit.ly... (Chapter Influence/Speechlesness: The Life and Death of a Bird)[5] http://bit.ly...[6] http://bit.ly...[7] http://bit.ly...;