Just one point of response to Kevin den Dulk’s generally very accurate and perceptive comments. It is not my view that all natural rights “inhere in the worth bestowed on human beings by [God's] love.” I am of the view that that is true for all those natural rights that are human rights.
But it is far from the case that all natural rights are human rights. A human right is such that all one needs, to possess the right, is to be a human being. But for many natural rights, one has to be something much more specific than that. Children, for example, have natural rights that adults do not have, and conversely. It is important here not to confuse human rights, with the rights that human beings have. Only a few of the rights that human beings have are human rights.
I find that a good many readers misunderstand me on this point; I conclude that it is something that I did not make sufficiently clear, even though I think my terminology is very standard. The Immanent Frame 5:56 PM 6:47 PM