I think this illustrates the problem: when it's framed in terms of rights, the conversation needs such careful wording and so many asterisks that it distracts f

I think this illustrates the problem: when it's framed in terms of rights, the conversation needs such careful wording and so many asterisks that it distracts from the point. I'm leaving out a bunch of things I want to say because it takes too long to say them. When someone says that X should be a right, is making it a right the ultimate goal? (What specifically does "should be a right" even mean? What do they think rights are? What do I?) Usually there's something else that making X a right implies, a goal for which the right is just an instrument. If making X a right results in Y, and Y is good, and that's why X should be a right, then why not argue directly for Y? Otherwise you make a purely moral argument that only works on people who already share your values. What if they don't? That happens all the time with moral framings. One side doesn't understand the other doesn't care about their values and repeating or restating them in different ways won't change that. Calling X a right is a position statement, not an argument. If you want to use it as a premise in an argument that "X is a right, therefore Y," you have to make a separate argument that X is actually a right. You can't just assert it. Borrowing the moral weight of humans rights most people recognize, attaching it to an asserted right most people don't, and using that to argue for an outcome based on their support for "human rights" is turning human rights into a stick to hit them with. The more it's used, the more they learn to roll their eyes at arguments invoking "human rights." What happens when they start to roll their eyes at human rights?