wobbles you ask

'Runner,

If "killing the unborn" in our country is wrong, is killing people in other countries somehow morally better?

If in self defense or to prevent further innocents being killed yes. If it is for greed, lust or inconvenience (like most abortions) no.

Examinator
There is nothing wrong with your post asserting that human rights is an absolute virtue. It is in fact the position most people hold. the problem arises in that people cannot agree on what the content of human rights is. For example Waldron (see references below) highlights a range of different interpretations similarly the Amnesty International Lectures could not get any agreement. Sugden attempts to put an economic analysis on it and Pogge uses Human Rights as a basis for arguing against world poverty.
Singer's current book puts foward the argument that just as we would stop and wade into a puddle to save a drowning child so we have the same responsibility to help prevent needless suffering no matter where it occurs.
Yet people will argue that distant strangers have a weaker right to our assistance then people nearby. Thus human rights abuse becomes an issue only if there is some other reason for us to want to act.
If you have a look at the bangkok declaration Bangkok Declaration. [cited; Available from: http://law.hku.hk/lawgovtsociety/Bangkok%20Declaration.htm.
you will see how easily a so called absolute can be reduced to a relative value.
What should be of some comfort from this thread is that no -one seems to take seriously the notion that we do nothing but rather that there appear to be practical difficulties that get in the way.
The simplest way to resolve the practical difficulties is to make regular donations to Amnesty international

Waldron, J., Theories of Rights. 1984, Oxford: OUP. Shute, S. and S. Hurley, On Human Rights; The Oxford Amnesty lectures 1993, New York
Sugden, R., The Economics of Rights, Co-operation and Welfare 2nd ed. 2004 New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Pogge, T., Human Rights and Human Responsibilities. Global Justice Transnational Politics, ed. P.D. Greiff and C. Cronin. 2002, London: MIT Press.

Baygon,
Thank you indeed. My bed side table just collapsed from the idea of me expanding my to read list.
Although I have read bits of Singers book (they told me to either buy it or but it back :-( )and I don't accept the commonly held position of distant people i.e. we have no direct emotional connection with people have lesser rights as being valid if for no other reason it's a cop out.
Off the top of my head I don't see that consensus is valid way of determining individuals’ absolutes.
The issue is to me is simple down to one point “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... Period".
Don’t get me wrong I’m not a religious person but this rule is older than any current religion and make sense. Anything else is a subset.
Human rights are those pertaining to individuals and are as individualistic as people.
Niceties are consensus driven… no abuse or ad hominem attacks on fellow OLOers. Not killing people is a different order of magnitude all together.

But again thank you for the effort and the list… more reading I think

examinator wrote:

The issue is to me is simple down to one point “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... Period".

Dear examinator,

I would do unto you what you would want done unto you. However, what you would want done unto you would not necessarily be what I want done unto me. Unless all individuals concerned have the same wants and tastes the Golden Rule is not a good one. One should be wary in deciding what is good for someone else by merely consulting one's own wants and needs.

Dear david f,

Now who's being vulpine?

You know darn well what examinator meant.

Treat others as you'd like to be treated.(Fairly).

runner,

You claim that most abortions are for 'greed, lust or inconvenience'.

You will produce the evidence for this empirical claim, won't you?

By the way, have you ever had an abortion or do you personally know anyone who has had one?