You are attempting to place all "rights" in one basket (call them what you will).
Our rights to life liberty & property are all in "one basket". Individual human rights are not defined by governments.
But you can't do that -- it's not the way things work.
Paulsen, you just don't want them to 'work' that way. You want governments to have the power to prohibit rights under the guise of 'regulating'.
We may form a government which says, "Your right to drink alcohol is not protected by the state until you are 21".
The question remains, is this a reasonable regulation? I say no. 18 is reasonable.
We may not form a governmemnt which says, "Your right to life is not protected by the state until you are 21". Why not? Your right to life is a God-given (u)inalienable right which cannot be taken away without individual due process.
Yet you claim that a woman's right to control her life can be lawfully ceded to the State from the moment of conception. Where is the individual due process in that concept?
Your fundamental (natural) right to drink alcohol may be regulated -- it can be taken away from (ie., not protected) certain groups of individuals by the state without individual due process, as long as it is applied equally and there is a compelling state interest.
You favor absolute State prohibition on many substances & objects. This is 'taking away' not regulating.
The government cannot do that with (u)inalienable rights.
All of our rights are inalienable.
Governments have no granted powers to prohibit, just to reasonably regulate.
Governments may reasonably regulate our right to life? Governments may say that the right to life is not protected until, say, age 3?
This is where you get into trouble with your "big basket" theory. And now we'll have to put up with 20 or 30 of your follow-on posts where you try to weasel out of it.
Weasel away. I'm done.