Invoking rights like this creates a bridge between the normative (what ought to be) and the descriptive (what will be, whether it ought to or not). Often, yeah, to borrow the obvious "truth" of a normative statement so a false descriptive one looks true.

It lets you say "I really, really think that X is good" but act as if you're just reporting "Everyone agrees with me that we should do whatever 'X is good' implies." It muddles the meaning of rights, tarnishes the concept by equating the support for rights in general with a specific, controversial position many people will reject, and all to make an argument that won't stand up to scrutiny and makes your audience feel cheated.

It's confusing even trying to describe what's normative and what's descriptive in the headline. Arguing descriptively that something is a right, which isn't widely thought to be a right, because it ought to be a right, because then your claim would be accepted, is too convoluted. It's making a descriptive claim about what normatives I do accept that's actually a normative claim about what normatives I ought to behave as if I accept. What?

If you want argue for specific action, just do it. Don't try to tell the audience what they believe.

The framing also means that people argue about rights instead of whatever the point was, like we're about to do here.