Well that's a specific derivative of the right to life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness. And of course, such specific rights are more precisely defined these in ways.
That doesn't jive with your earlier definition of a right. By that definition, every law that enables people to do something is a right, in its entirety, including this one.
But my main point is, that the rights, although defined by people, are also declared as natural rights, not rights given to men by other men.
There you go with the passive voice again. Didn't your English teacher tell you to avoid that, and why? Passive voice hides information. We can say "Joe ate a bowl of cereal" or we can say "a bowl of cereal was eaten". The former is active voice, the latter, passive voice. See how the passive voice version gives less information with the same # of words? This is useful if you don't want to indicate who ate the bowl of cereal - in other words, if you have something to hide.
In this case, you have decided to use language that hides who was declaring the rights. Who
declares rights as natural rights, and what gives them the authority to do so?
Because if it is the case that these are man-given rights, then it would be easy for a government official to argue that he should be able to take a right away, since he is the giver, as would be in a dictatorship or communist.
It's generally not the government official who was in charge of giving the rights. Someone else was, someone the public agrees on, like the "Founding Fathers" - or even the public itself, through direct representation. Like in a democracy.
On the other hand, when you start with the premise that they are natural, unalienable, god-given, then a man can't make a legitimate argument that he should be able to take them away from you. For how could a man take away a right which is a natural right?
By having the power to do so. What difference would it make if a god did grant certain rights? The god isn't enforcing them. Ultimately, it ends up being humans who have to grant those rights, not the god.