My answers, in order, are "other", "other", "no", "other", "prohibited under all circumstances", "Yes, in the event of terminal illness", "other", "upon rape, incest and defects that endanger the health of the moth (physical or mental)", "conception" and other.
As a general commentary, either people here do not know the particulars of what "human rights" mean, or did not think it through. "Human right" carries with it a connotation of inalienability - an inherent right that cannot be revoked, sold or transferred. It should be obvious how some of the rights discussed cannot be inalienable, but I'll detail them later on. As a note, though, I'm not a big believer of human rights in the first place. I adhere to a secular version of dependent origination: nothing is the way it is by its own virtue, all things are emergent. A corollary would be that nothing and no-one can have rights based on what they are; instead, rights are granted and revoked based on what a creature has done, is doing and can do. Human rights are, to me, an useful heuristic, a default starting point for the discussion of rights of a creature when it emerges.
Commentary of specific questions:
Question 1: healthcare is a ridiculously broad term. Some basic level of healthcare could properly be considered a duty rather than a right; the difference being that right is something I should allow (and maybe help) you to do, where as a duty is something I can demand you to do under threat of sanctions. For example, vaccination against common diseases should fall within health duties, to upkeep herd immunity. So should a health check-up at the start and during pregnancy, upon taking an insurance etc.. Some other facets of healthcare could be considered positive rights, meaning they should be provided by the state free or nearly free-of-charge. Emergency health care, like in case of traffic accidents, falls within this category. Positive rights like this primarily derive from RIght to Life.
But beyond emergency care and means to retain a level of societal balance, right to healthcare is primarily a negative right - meaning no-one should stop you from seeking care, but no-one is obliged to provide it either. And most of these are not inalienable. If you cause yourself injury, I shouldn't be obliged to help you without fair compensation. If you are a threat to me or someone else, I should have the right to withhold treatment from you and sometimes even kill you. The specific examples of euthanasia and abortion, both of which fall under the broad term of "healthcare", will get better treatment below.
Question 2: Here too, the answer varies depending on the type of education. Primary education, the sort that is administered in Finland between ages 7 and 17 and which includes skills like reading, writing, basic etiquette and knowledge of law, isn't a right - it is, once again, a duty, because without this education, a person can't reasonably be part of the social contracts that make up society. It is also a positive right, because a society that fails to provide primary education to its residents is doing harm to both them and itself. Secondary education, though? Highschool, vocational training and up (universities, polytechnics etc.) exist to allow for specialization and prepare for a joblife. Unless we also make the (frankly, insane) statement that having a job is positive right, these can't be positive rights. They also can't be inalienable. Why should an institution of learning accept a student that is dangerous to other students and perhaps the institution as a whole, for example? There's also the fact that with certain jobs and certain sorts of information, a person will become increasingly dangerous if they go haywire; hence, those jobs come with extra duties and obligations, and failure to adhere to those extras should lead to banning from those topics of education.
Question 3: This really should be a no-brainer. Internet is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used for weal and woe. If you cannot think of a single case where a person's access to internet should be restricted or revoked alltogether, you haven't thought about it long enough. Or go read Elizier Yudkowsky's papers about the "Friendship problem" in strong AIs.
Questions 4 & 8: These go together like a horse and carriage. Let me preface my commentary with something that will upset and potentially enrage a lot of you: if you unironically answered "yes" to question 4 and "upon request" to question 8, you are a moron at best and a hypocrite at worst. I will neither amend nor revoke this statement until someone invents an artificial womb that can be made available to all.
To understand this, we have to look at the actual declaration of human rights and what it says about reproductive rights. It says: "no person should be forced to parenthood."
So under the current imagining of human rights, a person has the negative right to not reproduce. There is no positive right to reproduce, nor has there ever been.
You could go and say there's a negative right to reproduce, meaning people should abstain from stopping you from trying, but this falls apart when we look at reality and notice that only (somewhat below) half of the human population are capable of bearing children. If you go ahead and say the demographic in question, healthy women of fertile age, have inalienable bodily autonomy that trumps the right to reproduce, then it logically follows that they can stop you from trying. Consequently, the demographics that cannot bear children on their own can have neither positive nor negative rights to reproduce. To all people that are not healthy women of fertile age, reproduction is not a right, it is a privilege that they have to earn by adhering to and satisfying the standards set by the child-bearing demographic.
Consequently, reproduction can no longer be considered a human right. It is neither universal, inalienable nor inherent to humanity.
On the flipside, a right to reproduce would by necessity have to be a positive right for everyone who cannot bear children - meaning that for every such person, there should be a member of the child-bearing demographic who is obligated to produce at least one child for them upon request. Consequently, abortion could no longer be inalienable - it would be conditional on the consent of the non-childbearing parent. Consequently, abortion could no longer be considered a human right.
This should be enough to prove that right to reproduce and right to abortion "upon request" (read: "without further justification") are mutually exclusive as human rights in practice. If one is a human right, the other cannot be. You cannot have two rights occupying the same priority order when their implementations directly contradict each other.
The sanest answer, as far as I'm concerned, would be to consider neither reproduction nor abortion as human rights. The choice to have or not have children should be a contract law issue, not a human rights one. The laws concerning it should be subservient to right to life and right to avert cruelty. I consider the "bodily autonomy" argument for giving the sole right on these issues to the childbearing demographic to be void of any merit. Bodily autonomy is already restricted along multiple axises, because without restricting it we couldn't actually enforce the very same rights restricting it is supposed to harm. Non-violence can't help you when harming you is a goal.
Question 5: This one was easy to answer, because "torture" means causing excess pain is the means towards a goal or even the goal itself, rather than just a side-effect. Sometimes, we can't avoid causing someone undue suffering (such as when we employ incarceration to isolate known antisocials, or when we hunt for food), but in those cases measures are typically taken to minimize it (or rather, the ethicality of such endeavors is contingent on such efforts). Torture, as a method, doesn't have many merits to it. The only things it serves well are to satisfy primal urges of sadism and vengeance. As a means of interrogation and coercion, it has been proven to be inefficient. Classifying forms of torture as "enhanced interrogation methods" is on the same level as labeling homeopathy and hypnosis as "enhanced medical treatment". It doesn't achieve the things it's claimed to achieve, so it shouldn't be done.
Question 6: it kinda undermines the idea of "inalienable right to life" if you can, you know, alienate (as in: surrender) your life to any person for any petty reason you wish. Euthanisia implies someone else has to do the killing. Tell me, why the Hell should a person with two working hands have the positive right to ask me to kill them? Why should others be obligated to kill those who wish to die? Juan Carlo, Nalyd and others who amended "euthanasia" to "suicide" are in the right here. The right to kill yourself is a much saner thing to grant as a negative human right, and "right to die" is perhaps the only natural "right" that fulfills all the criteria for one even in my books. Death is, all things granted, pretty inalienable aspect of life in the long run. A conditional right to being mercy killed is a valid topic of discussion when a person is in pain but unable to commit suicide, but a human right it cannot be.
Question 7: I don't believe in death penalty as a punishment for certain types of crimes. I consider it a means to remove proven resource sinks from the human population. If I were to implement a death penalty, it would not be attached to any specific crime (or even group of crimes), but rather, to a life of habitiual crime. It shouldn't be considered part of the justice system, but rather filed under human resources. Crime roughly follows the Pareto Principle: majority of events are caused by minority of actors. 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of people, and 50% of crimes are committed by 1% of people. This "hard core" of crime, as cops put it, consists of people who have been proven (or can be proven) to resists all known means of rehabilitation. They can never be reintegrated into the mainstream population without them resuming their criminal actions, and so they have to be kept incarcerated practically always, which is a resource drain to everyone else. It could be said that their continued existence is a burden and a rights violation towards both non-criminals, and particularly those criminals who can be rehabilitated, but have to put up with being put in an enclosed spaced with them in order to do that.
Even if death penalty's general prevention rate is 0% (meaning the concept of being killed does nothing to prevent emergence of new criminals), its special prevention rate is 100% unless proven otherwise (meaning an executed criminal will not commit the same crimes again due to an acute case of death). Now, there are problems with implementation, especially in ensuring that these people would be killed swiftly enough once the pattern of crime has been verified. If it takes 20-something years from being sentenced to being executed, the executioner isn't doing it right. The habitual criminal is costing resources for all that time and often there won't be a meaningful difference to just keeping them locked up until they die of old age or decide to commit suicide. Seriously. If there's to be a death penalty, it has to be implementable fast. Otherwise, the point is lost.
Question 9: Any imagining of human rights that purports to be inherent, inalienable and universal kinda fails its intended purpose if it doesn't cover the first 9 months of a human's natural lifecycle. Seriously here. We're talking a subset of natural rights here. Humans are a mammalian species genetically encoded for sexual, in utero reproduction. That's the default, natural way for humans to come into being. If you argue the fetus has no rights at conception, that's practically equivalent to saying no human has the right to exist, because that step is necessary for natural human life. If that's your starting point and you still argue there are such things as human rights, I want to know what you're smoking.
Question 10: I consider this a strange non sequitur in contrast to all the other questions. To understand this, you have to understand my opinion of war: war is what happens when the rights of two organizations conflict, and that conflict cannot be solved without violating rights of both. Because of this, "just war" is a paradox, and no moral truths can be derived from observing people at war; war is amoral. An ethical choice in war, if there even is such a thing, is whatever makes it end quickly. To that end, nuclear weapons could be useful... in some hypothetical scenario that hasn't provenly occurred in known history. I do not believe in MAD - rather, I believe anyone smart enough to acquire nuclear weapons acknowledges that their interests are better served by annexing the land and resources of their enemy, rather than blowing them all to Hell. Even without MAD, victory by nuclear weapons would be a Pyrrhic one at best.