We are on the same page, then. I don't we've had a single actual disagreement yet.

And I will concede that. But the real question is how far should a moral code affect? A group? A species? or all the animals? or somewhere in between? These questions are completely and painfully subjective, and cause us to align the answer with our personal preference.

And I never said that was an invalid argument.

I Have always had a certain lack of clarity with vegetarianism and veganism, even though my own mother is one. I wouldn't call Lions imoral, for example. I suppose that you could argue that as we are on top of and can subvert the global ecosystem, we have a special requirement to not create unnecessary suffering for those poor animals with a disadvantage in cognition. It seem that we have a species wide vanity that we are separate from nature, not apart from it.

But of course, I'm ignoring the whole point of this post. This is probably the objectively wisest and most moral choice for a whole host of reasons. But as this technology develops, we cannot just ignore the argument that can be rooted in the question: "why do we even care?"