Re: I can't argue since I'm no philosopher.

Well, there are only two options:

a. "Human rights" are inherent and exist whether or not society or government recognize them.

b. "Human rights" do not exist in an absolute way and it's only societal and/or legal recognition that creates them.

These options can later on be added to more complete theories of society and of law/government, of whichever origin and orientation. It's important to note that they do not, in themselves, constitute one. It's also important to note that they do not say whether X is or is not a human right, and while in itself that is a different debate, usually examples are given with an explicit purpose to undermine either statement.

(Examples:
Alice, a Tea Partier, affirms A and that life is an inherent right, but supports death penalty or just wars - so Bob, who affirms B, counter-argues that Alice really only thinks life is a right when the law says so.
Bob, an Occupier, affirms B and that property is only recognized by society but not a right - Alice counter-argues that Bob never leaves his car open and with the keys on the wheel, so Bob really thinks property is inherent but appeals to the state for practical concerns.)

My point with you was that you seem to start with a conventional view that rights are created by society, while then trying to apply the rights created by society to a universe of persons beyond that society. This is not possible. If rights are decided upon by a society, they have no bearing towards those outside it. If rights apply across a universe of persons, then no society created them and they are exogenous.

You don't have to argue, by the way.
This is what we here do in trying to clarify points.
This is why it matters (in a good way) that each of us knows more about some things than others.