[sklivvz1971]

When a court is essentially dictating law, you know we are in trouble. When a law tries to do philosophy, it's even worse.

You can't do this stuff unless you have a working definition of personhood. Good luck with that. The moment that animals have rights you run into a huge series of ethical problems. Should dogs have rights? Should rats? Should insects? Should tardigrades? Should plants? Bacteria?

Most of these philosophical questions have no univocal answers and are usually the layperson can't go beyond "this cute animal has rights because I like it and this other animal doesn't because it's ugly", which frankly is appalling.