I'm frankly suspicious of the framing of human relations in terms of rights for a few reasons, the first and most important of which is that rights are imaginary things that never actually intercede in the world to make anything happen. Rights are always enforced/protected by human beings who also conceived of them. From this point of view believing in the God of Thunder is more reasonable than believing in "the right to bodily autonomy" because at least sometimes we actually hear thunder.

But furthermore, the framing of rights seems pretty flimsy. Some people like to assert that rights are god given, but people can neither agree whether god exists nor what rights any particular god would "give" if so, and so for a political body that wishes to confine itself to that which is collectively plausible, the only justification for rights left is that they promote the common good. But if that is the case, then we ought to be open to any sort of thing which promotes the common good and the discussion of negative or positive rights seems at best a useful shorthand for certain perspectives.

In practice rights are just whatever the masses can demand from the powerful and while it might be the case that imagining that they are god given or obvious in their nature is helpful from a like propagandist point of view, as a person who prefers to think clearly, I can't countenance the self delusion.