Michael I find myself interested in the some of the same questions. One of the several things you pointed out which I had also been thinking is the advantage of moral rights not being bound by any boarders and not tethered by laws. This allows people to make a claim against their governing body with an appeal to human rights rather than claiming the government is breaking its own laws. Moral rights are a strong argument for many advocates hoping to change some laws within their countries. However, in dealing with the chapter on animal rights I was struck with an odd problem that had never really struck me as being near as complicated. When we start arguing for rights for non-human animals we run into a sticky issue of "why" that must be tackled very carefully. I dont mean just that we need to have a good reason to say other animals have rights but that the reason we give has to not screw up our existing system of rights to such a degree that the system no longer coheres. This did not seem like as big of an issue to me before this course because I had never really seen arguments for so many rights back to back. But it is clear to me no that I have read this far into the book that this could be a serious issue. We cant argue that animals dont have rights because of reason X and claim children have rights dispite X. Though the catigory is different I see a real issue with not making sure that we keep a solidly established thread running through each topic to make sure that when we assert that a right is in fact a right our grounds for doing so are consistent with our reasons for why other rights have been agreed upon.