Respondents here are missing what (I think?) is the joke here, which is that "natural rights" aren't really a thing, except as an arbitrary label. It's never be

Respondents here are missing what (I think?) is the joke here, which is that "natural rights" aren't really a thing, except as an arbitrary label. It's never been a very sturdy concept, unless some radical, new defense of them has been discovered and overcome the copious objections of critics, since I last checked. It's fine to like and defend liberties often labeled "natural rights", but justifying them on the basis of their being "natural" doesn't tend to be a strong line of argument—while it does open up room for making jokes by intentionally confusing two senses of "natural", which one may as well since the word doesn't carry much meaning in the phrase "natural rights" anyway.