[x86_64Ubuntu]

Like they mentioned in the article, I can imagine it's only a matter of time before household pets are given personhood.

[block_dagger]

In which case I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal. I would absolutely support this. Future generations will look back on pet ownership with clarity. It’s right there in the word - ownership.

[colonwqbang]

I agree that keeping pets is probably immoral. But even if we accept that, there are multiple problems.

- There may not be much of a "wild" left to release animals into.

- Some animals have been bred for hundreds of generations and are now dependent on humans.

- Who has the right to speak for these animals? How do they divine what their client wants? It's not reasonable that any person on the street can bring a motion of habeas corpus on behalf of your dog.

[jobigoud]

> I would assume that domination over them by us would be illegal.

I don't think being given personhood would necessarily make it illegal. There is the precedent of dependent persons (mentally handicapped, babies) that have personhood but are also under the control of someone else that take decisions for them.

[exitheone]

Can't wait for the legislation so I can finally be released from servitude to my cat. /s

[dudeinjapan]

My dog already thinks he's a person. He wants to eat people food.

[echoangle]

And house flies would need to be recognized as persons next.

[CalRobert]

Why pets but not the animals we eat?