The philosophy to protect the right of the individual can stand independent from religion just as ably as it can be an intrinsic part of faith.

The first raw premise is that an individual has an expectation of protection from harm against their person or their property. This is the cornerstone of law by necessity and of all functioning societies. The test is quite simple, next time you are on a public bus try and take a person’s bag or threaten their life and others will not have to know the law statutes to inform you of their belief that you are doing wrong. The right of person and property may be codified but it existed prior and was endemic.

There is superiority in these rights and, if we return to the bus, the taking of the life would receive a far greater outrage than the stealing of a purse. This is not by instruction, it is innate. So, now the question is; if I have these rights, when did I get them and what was the triggering event for the crystallisation of these rights? Did I have the right to kill you today? Did I have the right to kill you yesterday? Did I have the right to kill you last year? Did I have the right to kill you the day after you were born?

Since your birth date is arbitrary in a certain period, why is there the presumption that I had the right to kill you the day before you were born? You were intrinsically the same person, both before and after you were born. If you were a boy, you remained a boy, if you were a girl, you remained a girl, if you were black, you remained black, if you were white, you remained white, if you had the traits of athleticism then you were born with the potential to be athletic. As you were nurtured before you were born, for survival you had to be nurtured and protected after you were born. If others did not see to your nurture then they were culpable, liable and responsible with the law codifying an innate community belief in protection of the defenceless.

The argument prior to birth appears to be one of 'it is my body so this must be my possession'. If it is my property then I can do with it as I will. If a child is your property before birth, why is it not your property after birth or fractions of your property during birth? The argument that a baby, encompassed by my body, is my property is to say that if I swallowed another person’s engagement ring it becomes my property. The argument that nurture gives rights to property means that if a child comes to stay with me, do they become my property to do with as I will? The obvious response is they may well be my responsibility but responsibility does not endow a right of property.

Though it is sanctioned by the state that a child can be killed the day before it is born, with the cost covered by the public, there is a general belief that this is very wrong as it is hidden by those who participate and swept under the carpet by the public generally.

The question is: where do the rights for an individual to be protected from being killed attach to the person? If we say it is after an arbitrary number in time, does that mean that one minute after an arbitrary minute on that arbitrary day, in that arbitrary month of gestation, the right was indisputable and a minute before it did not exist at all? This argument of right attached to time frames is clumsy and fallacious. It is confusing and illogical at one second in a path of progression, where the process existed that would continue to fulfilment, if unimpeded, that rights were not there but in some unexplainable instantaneous second later, all rights of humanity appear so that on the same path, within two seconds, two completely opposed moral positions exist. The obvious position is that rights start with the path and the start of the path is conception.

The most difficult position with abortion is that those who have been involved with it are extremely hesitant in a change of views that may bring the realisation that they have killed someone. It is imperative to the nature of being human that we do not want this hanging over us so there must be a continual search for a justification, a wider imprimatur, a condoning of the action. True peace in this journey comes from acceptance that the action was wrong. The purpose of the debate is never to attack the person as no-one is perfect and we all take actions that are wrong but the quest in life is to acknowledge where we are wrong and change and, I believe, that is the only way to get the monkey of your back.

As a society we must pursue the debate for justice or it belittles other causes as insincere. Why do you concern yourself with the killing of whales when you condone the killing of your own? Why do you worry about carbon emission reductions to save the planet when you will not save a child who will be killed today in your capital? How can you say sorry when you continue to repeat the same wrong? If an unnecessary war that takes innocent lives is an abomination, then what are we doing with the endorsement of the taking of innocent lives in the tens of thousands in our own country? Are we not espousing our fervour for a myriad of issues which stand in proxy for rottenness at our core? True enlightenment is the bravery after reflection to realise we, as a nation, are wrong and must change but it must be a statement against the action of abortion, not a judgement of the persons involved; that is their task alone.

There are two main arguments that are continually put forward as a justification for abortion, in general, when they are in fact examples in the extreme. These are as a just outcome after the incidence of rape, and the eugenics argument for those who in utero are determined to be afflicted by some incapacity as determined by us.

Rape is a vile and abhorrent crime. But who is the criminal? It is certainly not the mother but why is the destruction of another innocent participant, the child, the remedy? The criminal is the rapist and to believe that those related are equally punishable is to believe in inherited guilt, that people can be born bad by reason of the action of their antecedent. This is the argument for an inherited class society.

For those who are born with an infliction that we would not want to live with, how does that determine their view of their life? It appears this is the argument, if you are not like me or how I would want to be, then you must be unhappy. The world is better when it is perfect and only certain flowers must grow in the garden. We must assume that the world seen through different eyes has different priorities and how can we determine the essence of someone’s happiness or worth before they are even born? Though someone may be distorted through our eyes, through their eyes the world may be as beautiful and inspiring as it is to us and why should we be allowed to judge their joy or attachment to life?