Today, 01:55 PM
Such a contradiction arises ONLY as the result of stone-ignorance of the basics.
Firstly, the source of rights is less relevant than one might think, save for the outlandishly ignorant assertion that they evolve from the "state", or some equivalently nonsensical notion.
Whether "God" endowed us with rights is immaterial to the fact that our rights inhere from the nature of our relationships to one another. The solitary man is as God in the most practical terms. He can do as he pleases, any time he fancies to do so, and never worry about repercussions beyond things akin to setting himself on fire and the sort.
Add one other individual to the mix and everything changes. It is one thing to strike one's own finger with a stone, but quite another to do so to one's fellow, particularly without his knowledge and consent. THAT is where the basis of our rights arises as such, where the notion was begotten because the solitary Adam has no need for such ideas because of his status as effective God of all he sees and experiences.
The solitary Adam, by whatever virtue, had born into him the desire to continue his life, thereby giving rise to a claim to that life, which is rightly his own. The appearance of Eve almost certainly made no change in that claim; nay, it may have indeed bolstered it greatly, especially after the "wedding night". :) Wanting so much to do a LOT more of that would almost certainly further cement and invigorate Adam's claim to life. Eve, likely finding herself in the same position, certainly after the passage of that pleasant soreness, would also be even more inclined to claim that which was born into her: life itself.