I believe that the author of this article makes some good points, but also has logical errors.
God gave His people rights, which are not merely blessings, but legal rights. "All the souls are Mine", God declared, and "The earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof, the world and all they that dwell therein" and "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of Adam-men." However, our enjoyment of those rights exists only when we walk in obedience to Him. God dispossessed the Canaanites and gave the land of Canaan to His people. God's Rights supersede all other. Kings had the right to the throne when God established them, but if they sinned against God and departed from the morality that He established, they stepped out of their authority.
Our rights continue to exist even if we sin, but other rights of a greater nature supersede general rights, that is the Moral Right of God in Judgment and the moral right of our kinsman in judgment if we actually violate what God commanded and truly damage him.
God commanded thou shalt not steal; that reveals the right to property in its very command. If something was stolen, God established Judgments of restitution which also reveals right of ownership.
God commanded thou shalt not commit adultery and thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife (all sin begins and exists in the heart even if not acted upon); that reveals the right to ones wife. When a man hath taken a new wife (the wording itself that shows it was not a 50-50 partnership in terms of authority, but that God established Headship) he was not to go to war or be charged with any business, but remain home alone for a year with his new wife; it being the sacred right of the husband to consummate the marriage and live together with the wife that he had espoused. The same law applied to the building of a new house, planting of a new tree or vineyard, since it was the sacred right of the householder/husbandman to dedicate and enjoy the fruits of his labor.
Property rights were so sacred that God established laws so that the property would not pass out of the family or tribe.
Thou shalt do no murder reveals the right not to be killed and God established laws to preserve life and declared when and how killing was permissible. If a man or a man's slave was wounded or killed, God established Judgments of restitution which reveals right of ownership and right to ones own body or those of his wife, children, etc. The fact that Judgments payed restitution to man who was injured, as well as to God Who was also sinned against again reveals the rights God invested in man. All sin is ultimately against God; but it can also be against His children too. Both wronged parties (God and man) need to be satisfied in Judgment.
These rights are not inherent in ourselves, but in the morality that God established for us and in us as His children and legal representatives.
The author also confuses "innocence" (a Catholic notion) with those persons unable to defend themselves. All are born with the sin nature and no one is innocent in God's Eyes, of their own merit. This does not justify murder; but it is another flaw in this article. Whether the unborn ever get the opportunity to sin does not change their sinfulness. Even as if a pregnant woman was contaminated with radiation, so is her unborn child. "Fairness" in man's eyes is not an issue that alters reality.
He is correct in his indictment in the church's silence and Christians' apathy and tolerance of sin while complaining about petty trivialities; though he misunderstands the intent of Isaiah 58:1 in that it is God speaking sarcastically (all the way to v.5) to those dead-hearted of His people who went through the mechanical motions of repentance and obedience as required by law, but their hearts were far from it and they offered sacrifices without turning from their sin, without truly being sorry for it—while still knee deep in it, having no intention of stepping out of it.
The Common Law of England/America derived from the Law of God.
The problem is not rights. The problem is demanding rights without responsibility and the problem is thinking that those rights are inherent in man, rather than inherited rights that God has bequeathed to us in Himself. However, sinful man (including most Christians, being humanists) reject the notion of the inheritance of the sin nature, embracing the "basic goodness of man" and that causes a skewed notion of rights and it causes one to leave God out of the center of the picture, by degrees, until He is not even on the canvas—when in fact He is not only the central theme, but all in all. The problem is irresponsibility and selfishness. Most every person thinks it is his right to inherit his father's wealth, but would disagree with the thought that he also inherits his father's debt. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Truth breaks down when selfish man picks and chooses which part of God's Moral Code that he wants to embrace (which I have called "Smorgasbord Theology" for over a quarter of a century) while rejecting the rest. However, one has no legal right choose which laws of God he will obey. They aren't the 10 "Suggestions" (and there are not merely 10 of them; the 10 Commandments are 10 categories of law under which each law of God is organized). They are not "multiple choice"; but "yes" (obedience) or "no" (rebellion) and a "no" answer brings guiltiness and judgment. Picking which laws of God you will obey is not obedience, but self-service / self-worship.
Man's rights exists within God's Rights (which are Ultimate and Supreme in everything); however, man can only enjoy the "pleasant" end of his rights when he walks in obedience with God; when he does not walk in obedience with God, he experiences the "business end" of God's Rights and others' rights that we may have violated.