Many commonsense, compassionate people who love their animals do not understand the true nature of the animal rights movement. They care about their animals and want to insure they are treated humanely. Because they have been misled into believing that the movement is about something else (helping animals), they "think" they are for animal rights. What they actually believe in is animal welfare, from a responsible animal ownership perspective. They own and love animals and care for them and do not want to see any animal abused.
Do not confuse these feelings of compassion for animals with a movement that actually has no true regard for the protection of an animal's or a human's rights. If a person truly cares about animals, it is critical to realize the difference between the two philosophies. Every person who thinks he/she is for animal rights, when they are actually for animal welfare, poses a threat to themselves and others when it comes to our continued right to own animals. They help perpetuate a philosophy that has the potential to legally change our relationships with animals, permanently. This can happen because those laws that are passed by the animal rights people put us closer and closer to the place where our right to own any animals, for any purpose, has been legislated away.
True animal rights people hate humans and feel they are a blight on the planet. They only tolerate themselves and each other so they can carry on their campaigns against the rest of humanity. They don't particularly like non-human animals but by constantly claiming "animal abuse" they can play on the emotions of softhearted animal welfare people and solicit money from them to promote their agenda.
A part of the animal rights movement is to legally elevate the animal to a level as high as, or higher than, that of a person. When this happens those animals that depend upon us for their food, shelter, vet care, and affection are actually put at risk because the animal rights sponsored law has decreased the expected responsibilities of the animal owner.
If animals are to have the same legal rights as people then they will be expected to have the same level of responsibility as people, also. Is not one of the most important differences between humans and animals that humans are expected to take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of the animals owned by them? If the legal system sees fit to place animals on a par with people then might I ask that my pets take their turn paying the rent, buying my food as well as their own and paying my doctor's bills as well as their vet bills? Think about it the next time you get a solicitation from one of those "animal rights" organizations, such as HSUS or PETA or one of the others, that neither helps or likes animals, and does not pay the rent for you or your pets.
These organizations care about only two things: (1) making more money for themselves and to (2) support and promote an extremist agenda that advocates no interaction whatsoever between humans and animals.
In politics whoever wins the battle of semantics, wins the war
You are correct, the word "rights" in this day and age has been so corrupted of it's true meaning, just about anything these days has the tag "rights" attached to it to give it air of importance