wdmw, you seem to be trying to codify a set of laws based on libertarian natural rights. I think it's an error to try to do this.
The beauty and sheer elegance of libertarian natural rights principle is the fact that it can be summed up in a sentence: people are sovereign in their own body, and any property derived from it. Naturally this extends to all manner of human rights, property rights, tort law, et cetera; it's unwise of anybody to specify how that should happen - that's the job of experts in each particular field.
So to address FirstAscent's questions: I don't know. All that's important is that the natural rights principle is applied consistently - that way the rights of all involved are protected.
To clear up, I'm trying to have a discussion about Michael Van Notten's attempt to codify natural rights into law. I agree with your sentiment that the principle itself is what's important. What he's done here is to start the process of interpreting and expanding upon the conclusions.
I don't think all of them are correct, but its a good effort. In the evolution of such a code of law, precedents and rulings would build into a body of common law based on those principles. The part I find most promising is that this would be developed competitively and non-monopolistically. This seems like an odd middle-step. The provision about abortion seems the strangest to me. To quote a private message I received:
The controversy over abortion is based on the conflict between the woman's right to privacy and the unborn child's right to life. Of course, if the unborn child is not a "person" then he has no right to life. But if he is a "person" then he does. Only science can answer that question.
I agree with this statement. By extrapolating the principle closer to real-life application, you lose the capacity for evolving interpretation based on scientific advancements and discovery.