I do not support violating any rights, including the right not to have the meaning of my words deliberately distored. Therefore I encourage to see the duty of interpretating the words of others (including mine) in a fair and good meaning.
Then let's get this straight from the beginning. You said life is an inalienable right, and that the government can't declare suicide legal. You also said "directly carries the duty of acting to uphold those rights," and later agreed to the spreading of this concept to other rights besides life.
How can I not interpret that to mean that we MUST exercise our rights, because somehow every right equals a duty to exercise it?
The logical conclusion of that position is rediculous, as it infringes on the rights of the people in the name of their rights.