So I'm not literally saying above that I'm using a foundationalist approach. You need to be able to not read everything in an overly "literal" and simplified way. It wouldn't be a question if you were able to do that. — Terrapin Station

So, again, thanks for the personality advice, but just saying "it's obvious what I mean if you can read properly" is not really engaging in conversation is it? It is, for whatever reason, not obvious to me, so unless you have some bizarre objection to explaining yourself, why won't you just answer the question positively rather than negatively. Instead of a long list of things you don't mean, why not just provide a fuller explanation of what you do mean.

I say 'bizarre' because surely the only reason to comment here is to communicate your ideas to other people. You seem quite happy to spend thousands of words disparaging my personality, but strangely reluctant to simply explain what you mean when questioned.

unless you have some bizarre objection to explaining yourself, — Isaac

If I'm interacting with an Aspie who wants to argue with me, even if it's simply because I have a lot of views that are different than their own views, then explaining myself is going to be a never-ending task. So that would be my objection to it. It's laborious, and ultimately futile in my opinion (reflected by the fact that I keep putting the word "literal" in quotation marks) to try to "Aspie-proof" everything one says.

A suggestion that would help a lot--and I know I gave this suggestion earlier, is that rather than approaching a desire for clarification in an argumentative manner, try approaching it in an inquisitive manner--you catch more flies with honey than vinegar . . . of course, to do that, you have to at least be able to pretend that you're interested in others persons' views simply because they're another person's views, and you have an interest in understanding other persons' views as such.

Surely a right is something no-one can prevent? Except for the totally infirm, who can be stopped from killing themselves?

Surely a right is something no-one can prevent? — iolo

Natural rights can be prevented, including legally, but it's seen as morally wrong to prevent them.

Legal rights can be prevented--physically, for example, but it's illegal to prevent them.

Natural rights can be prevented, including legally, but it's seen as morally wrong to prevent them.

Legal rights can be prevented--physically, for example, but it's illegal to prevent them. — Terrapin Station

I find that sort of thinking baffling. What can 'moral' mean in such circumstances, or - if you can present their being exercised - 'illegal'? It seems to be a sort of dream world, and I think we'd be better working on the one we live in.

If you are in your eighties, and your partner of many decades passes away, you should absolutely have the right to follow. I think that counter-example is intuitively simple, real, and solid.