There is another way to discuss the treatment of animals, but it's not on the basis of animal rights. But even if discussion on the basis of animal rights was appropriate, it still ends up being self-refuting. Let me put it this way. If man is special, requiring him to act in a special way, then he is by definition set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and is on a higher moral plain. But Newkirk denies that.
Animals are the moral equivalent of humans.
If that's so then we should be allowed to act like animals. That means eating, devouring, destroying and exploiting each other just like the rest of the animal kingdom does. That's Mother's law. Newkirk apparently doesn't believe in Father, but she wants us to live by Father's rules, not Mother's. But you can't have it both ways.