This schism plays out daily. When the Humane Society of the United States (welfare) negotiates with McDonald's to improve chicken slaughter speeds, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA, which oscillates between welfare and rights) might protest the deal, arguing it greenwashes murder. Legally, the world is firmly in the welfare camp. In the eyes of the law, animals are things . They are chattel, like a toaster. You can own them, sell them, and destroy them (provided you don't violate a specific anti-cruelty statute).
"You are polishing the chains. A 'humane slaughterhouse' is an oxymoron. By celebrating 'free-range' labels, you validate the property status of animals. You make oppressors feel virtuous. You are the enemy of the revolution." This schism plays out daily
The rights view holds that using an animal for human purposes is inherently wrong, regardless of how painless the process is. You cannot humanely violate a right. In the eyes of the law, animals are things
Consider the analogy: You could theoretically anesthetize a human being completely, painlessly remove their organs, and let them die in their sleep. Yet, we call this murder. Why? Because the violation of the right to life is not ameliorated by the absence of pain. Rights theorists apply this logic to sentient beings. "You are polishing the chains
“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” — Jeremy Bentham (Founder of Utilitarianism, and perhaps the grandfather of both camps).