Where is the Agency in PETA and Barton??

The PETA add of the little chickens...exclaiming that they aren't nuggets, reminded me of something Barton said: "The United Way came to center most of their ads around children, a textual practice with multiple effects...it effectively erase[es] the complex experience of disability...it also establishes a binary distinction between the able-bodied and the disabled, separating and distancing the disabled from the abled." (173) PETA is doing the exact same thing here in this ad. Why are little "children" chickens being distinguished between full grown, fattened chickens, who are most definitely kept for slaughter as well? If we are going with the whole "These animals have feelings too!" act, then why would the experiences of the adult chicken not be shown to? If both parties have feelings, then do both not have agency? Or is it an absurd thing to think of a chicken having agency? Or is it only absurd because if we thought of them as beings possessive of agency, then maybe we wouldn't...eat them? Yes, that's a lot of turning tables. I think I've decided that it isn't the chickens who have the agency, its the advertisers, manipulating the way readers perceive things. Before the PETA ad, would I have thought of baby chickens as chicken nuggets? Absolutely not. Will I now? Not to any large degree, but yea from time to time. I think the key, with Barton's disability ads and PETA's animal rights ads, is to preserve your own agency, as the reader, to not let them simply influence and manipulate your thoughts and opinions, but to employ your own and "filter."