That's not a definition folks, other than socialists, accept.
ab·so·lute adj.
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3. a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
The relevant definition is 3a. -- Not limited by restrictions or exceptions. Which part of that is socialistic? Should I be looking for left-wing bias at dictionary.com?
The Declaration of Independence says,
The Declaration of Independence is a brilliant political document, one of the most succinct and eloquent ever written, but it does not carry the force of law. The Constitution does, and it doesn't speak of absolute or inalienable rights; it speaks of rights that cannot be infringed without due process of law.
In so saying, it tacitly accepts that even the most essential rights can be infringed by due process of law. As they are, every hour of every day. People are fined, imprisoned, and, less frequently, executed under color of law. We have safeguards in place to ensure that these deprivations don't happen casually or erroneously, but they happen nonetheless.
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" is a beautiful bit of rhetoric, but when the Founders came down to writing actual binding law, they settled on life, liberty and property as the three essential rights. Those are the basic three found in Locke, and also in the 5th and 14th amendments.
You can be lawfully deprived of life, liberty or property for the public good, even if you haven't committed or been convicted of any offense. You can be deprived of liberty via a military draft, and of life if ordered to undertake a dangerous mission after being drafted. You're deprived of property via withheld taxes every Friday, every other Friday, on the 1st and 15th, or every quarter, depending on your personal financial arrangements.
You seem to believe that a right can be called "absolute" even if it's lawfully infringed every day. If that's your position, we'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of the word. You haven't offered anything to move me from my position that there are no absolute rights, that, for example, your right to swing your fist is not absolute because it becomes illegal if your fist hits my face. And that, furthermore, it's legal to prevent you from swinging near my face, trying to hit my face or threatening to hit my face.
Human sacrifice is no more a right, than health care is.
The free exercise of religion is a right. Human sacrifice is an age-old practice in some religious traditions. If religious practice were an absolute right, it would include human sacrifice. It doesn't, so it's restricted. Restricted is by definition not absolute. I suspect this is a point on which we'll have to agree to disagree.
I included the usage in the DoI and noted that absolute right was used synonomously with natural right and unalienable right. Those are rights you are born with. If you check Websters they include: perfectly embodying the nature of a thing(~justice). Dictionaries are not the best source to obtain the meaning of the phrase "absolute right".
Here's something from the philosophical lit concerning Locke and the usage and meaning of absolute right. The philosopher uses the adjective, "absolute" to refer to what ought and the justifications. You generally won't find the oughts and justificaitons in a dicitonary. Locke called the people, the absolute sovereigns, but obviously they can and were ruled by tyrants and their sovereignty ended by death at the hands of tyrants.
Socialists diminish the meaning of right to no more than some arbitrary arrived at entitlement according to an arbitrary distributive justice scheme. In general right is different from natural, absolute right, in that you are born with them and they protect the essence of man. Right under the socialist/distributive justice schemes, is based on arbitrary claims of need, and the desires and goals of those in power. Right then, becomes nothing more than your gain from an arbitrary political order.
The purpose of absolute right is to protect the essence and natural sovereignty of will of the individual. The purpose of right under distributive justice schemes amounts to no more than what it takes to run and maintain the scheme and award the rulers.