Is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nonsense?

I will try to invalidate some of the points of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The full text can be found here.

Article 2 says:

(...) Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the (...) status of the country or territory to which a person belongs (...)

This contradicts Article 4 that goes:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

So which is it, do people belong to counties or territories or cannot be held in slavery? You cannot have both!

Article 13:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

It basically says that your movements are severely restricted.

Article 14:

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations [emphasis added].

You basically cannot seek asylum in any country if you are targeted by the UN.

Article 16:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(...)

Why doesn't it say 'all people', but 'men and women'?

Why doesn't Article 3 say 'men and women have the right to life' but instead:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Why are some articles for everyone and some not for everyone?

Why doesn't article 16 add 'without any limitation due to sex'?

Article 2 says:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex [emphasis added] (...)

So sometimes distinction due to sex is permissible?

Doesn't it violate the principle of the whole Declaration being Universal? Why doesn't the title say 'Gender-specific Declaration of Human Rights'? I am thoroughly confused.

Article 26 is self-contradictory. It says:

(...) Elementary education shall be compulsory

and:

(...) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

So is it compulsory or is it chosen by the parents?

Article 29 is the most controversial. It says:

(...) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

So basically if the UN says so, you can disregard any and all of these articles.

Does the Declaration have a purpose?

The Declaration merely grants the UN and the states the rights to arbitrarily deprive people of their rights, even those specifically stated in the same Declaration, until further notice.

It also promotes gender-specific rules regarding marriage, while at the same time declaring that no laws may be gender-specific, which is a contradiction.

The moment I read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I realized that it is complete nonsense.

Other rights

There is a proposition to recognize Human Right to Water and Sanitation as a human right.

I don't know what for, though, if according to Article 29 the UN can at all times deprive people of all rights without prior notice.

United States Declaration of Independence recognizes the rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I am not really happy with that. What if somebody's pursuit of happiness involves hurting others? What if somebody doesn't want to pursuit happiness?

I am a fan of Life, Liberty and Property, which is described in the following quote:

July 4, 2001. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to be inalienable rights, but the Bill of Rights changed the phrase to "life, liberty and property." 1 The intrinsic, emotional desirability of the pursuit of happiness virtually guaranteed its widespread acceptance as a goal of the revolution and enhanced the slogan's motivational effect. In contrast, a common-sense understanding of property as an essential element of "liberty" required rational analysis making it unlikely for such concept to gain widespread understanding. Including "pursuit of happiness" in the revolutionary slogan was redundant but useful, and omitting it from the Bill of Rights subtracted nothing from the concept of "liberty." Inclusion of "property" in the revolutionary slogan was not necessary, nor would it have inspired revolutionary fervor, but the absence of a widespread common-sense understanding of it as an essential component of "liberty" made its inclusion in the Bill of Rights necessary.

I presume I know why the right to property was not included in the Declaration of Independence, if the United States is a country that relies heavily on taxes.

Still, life, property, and even pursuit of happiness are all parts of liberty, so even one right, the right to liberty, is enough, while the others are just illustration or what may be meant by liberty.

Still, the Universal Declaration of Human rights stands in direct contrast to the right to liberty, so I believe it should be scrapped.