THE PROBLEM BEGINS WHEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE CONDITIONALISED BY GOVERNMENTS

Now, such a position from the UK MPs, where they approve abortion without restrictions, even until birth, occurs because of a fundamental flaw in human logic, where inalienable, God-given rights and freedoms (like free speech and the right to life), are viewed not as inalienable and thus subject to statutory limitations or conditional application by governments. And this is a flaw in human logic because by virtue of these rights being God-given, they are outside of the purview or powers of any government or authority to limit or take away. Even governments are bound by those rights. That is why capital punishment is also wrong! Capital punishment legislates power for the government to commit the crime of intentionally killing a person while, on principle, that very government argues that murder is wrong. This is wrong because inalienable rights are God-given and are thus binding on the government as well. And, when governments treat inalienable rights as being subject to statutory limitations or conditional application, we begin to see governments legitimise heinous conduct, like speech police and abortion till birth.

But, here is why the right to life of any human being is an inalienable right: it is because without the right to life (or more accurately, without legal provisions that recognise and protect life as being inherently valuable, without condition), all other rights lose significance and the potential for application and measurable utility. In other words, the right to education, the right to healthcare, and even the freedom of choice and speech all do not matter if a person is not alive. And so, the right to life is a principle and inalienable right.

Secondantly, the right to life and all inalienable rights warrant absolute protection because they are an inherent part of a sensible world where people can co-exist, without an entitlement to harm another. That is why the litmus test for whether one truly values free speech is whether he/she is willing to defend absolute free speech even for people with whom he/she disagrees. Similarly, do you value even the lives of those you oppose, or those who contribute less to society (like the elderly,) or even those who cannot yet exercise agency and defend themselves (like unborn children).

Then, finally, inalienable rights are also protectionary. Meaning that they pre-emptively serve to empower people against those who seek to oppress and destroy them. They do this by making abhorrent practices inherently wrong by virtue of the fact that they infringe upon the provisions of those respective inalienable rights. This is why, despite apartheid, the holocaust and slavery having been legal systems, enacted by governments, those oppressed were entitled to resistance and protest because those laws infringed upon inalienable rights. In other words, in alienable rights pre-emptively deemed apartheid, the holocaust and slavery wrong, despite their lawful implementation by the governments of those times – thus serving to protect people from abuse of power from government.

Therefore, if we allow governments, such as that in the UK, to subject inalienable rights to statutory limitations or conditional application, then we are completely disregarding not only their God-given nature, but also the protectionist role that these rights play – which is nothing short of moral decadence.

WHY DO UNBORN (AND BORN) BABIES ALSO HAVE THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE

Now, one of the very aggravating responses you hear on the inherent value of life is that: perhaps the argument on protecting the inalienable right to life applies to people who are alive and capable of exercising agency; in other words, people who know that they are alive and have this inalienable freedom – which unborn babies, or born babies are not. In fact, those pro-abortion will often state that we do not even know when life in the womb actually begins, and therefore should not have to give the right to life to unborn babies. Well, let’s directly respond to this argument.

The first direct response is that it is a lie to state that we do not know when human life begins. Quite simply, it begins at conception or fertilisation. In fact, this truth is deduced from the Scriptures. In particular, one of the truths proving that Jesus is God is His supernatural birth through a virgin, in that while His human body came from his mother Mary, His divine life did not come from his earthly father, Joseph. Instead, His life came from the Holy Spirit, when He came upon Mary. This then explains that the mother provides a child with his/her body, but the father’s seed is where the life of the child comes from. Which is then, why, through the combination of these two, we understand that life begins at conception: where that which gives life and that which gives a body to house that life meet. In fact, this same principle even applies with plants – in Genesis 1, God outlines that the plants carried seeds that could reproduce after their own kind. And so, it really is not a mystery what the purpose of conception is. Meaning that the right to life thus DOES apply to unborn and born babies.

However, even if it was a mystery when life began and there was no way to determine this, that is all the more reason NOT to kill the baby and preserve its life – lest you commit murder unknowingly. In fact, we have principles in society that follow this same line of thinking. For instance, if you shoot blindly at what you think is a criminal but kill a civilian walking by, you will be held liable for  involuntary manslaughter. But for some reason, those claiming they do not know when life begins in the womb, have just conveniently skipped over that legal precedent.

Then finally, even science proves that life begins at conception, because if what occurred after conception was just an accumulation of dead cells… well, anything that is lifeless does not have the potential to grow.

THERE IS A DEMONIC ANTI-LIFE AGENDA IN THE U.K. – SEEN ALSO WITH EUTHANASIA

In actual fact, what we are seeing in the UK is the manifestation of a demonic anti-life agenda – especially considering that this development in light of abortion is part of a history of diabolical covid vaccination policy, and extreme applications of euthanaisa. Which then brings us to the Terminally Ill Adults (or End of Life) Bill. And to begin with, we must note that the present Bill was actually not the first that was debated in parliament. More specifically, in 2015 MPs voted overwhelmingly against changing the law to allow doctors to help terminally ill people end their lives. In their first vote on the issue for about 20 years, the Commons rejected the assisted dying bill introduced by Rob Marris, a Labour MP who had argued that it was about ensuring peaceful deaths rather than euthanasia.

The debate was heated on both sides, with many MPs drawing on their personal experiences of dying relatives to give weight to their arguments. However, opponents outnumbered supporters by 212, with 330 voting against and 118 in favour. In addition, the debate came to the Commons after the supreme court said in 2014 it could not make a ruling in favour of Tony Nicklinson’s right to die because it was a matter for parliament.

Well, passions ran high from the beginning of the parliamentary debate. Crispin Blunt, a Conservative former minister whose parents and father-in-law died of cancer, made the case for people to be given a choice on how to end their lives, saying he was somewhat (quote) “appalled that the Catholic and faith lobby seek to limit personal autonomy” (end quote) – which is quite critical to keep in mind for the purpose of our discussion. Similarly, Keir Starmer, the Labour MP and former director of public prosecutions at the time, also gave a speech in favour, after laying out his reasons for deciding in a number of cases not to prosecute people who had helped dying relatives to end their lives abroad.

On the other hand, Caroline Spelman, a Conservative former environment secretary, said the sanctity of life should be respected and older people should not feel they are a burden on their families. In the same light, Fiona Bruce, the Tory MP for Congleton, described the bill as “legally and ethically totally unacceptable”, while the former defence secretary, Liam Fox, said the legislation would open a “Pandora’s box” and “overturn 2,000 years of the Hippocratic oath”. Labour MP Lyn Brown said she was concerned elderly people could be “emotionally blackmailed” by relatives to end their lives. And one of the most emotional interventions was from Labour’s Yasmin Qureshi, who said her 83-year-old mother had been given three days to live and began to say she felt like a burden on her family and could not go on, AND YET she survived and fully recovered!

Clearly, the prevailing sentiment at that time in the UK, in 2015, was that euthanasia was immoral and unacceptable – which is critical to note because the indicated arguments in support of euthanasia were essentially the same arguments that were made in the recent debate this year. So, what changed in 2024, being almost a decade later? It appears that evidently the answer lies in a shift away from Godly wisdom and the resulting moral decadence and a demonic anti-life agenda!

In particular, as the war on Christians intensifies in Europe (with France making a mockery of Christ during the Olympics; the BBC suppressing Christian doctrine and figures on their platforms, and Chrstians being arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic – like we saw with Adam Smith-Connor in Britain), well the proponents of the depopulation agenda have also been unrelenting – so much so, that the same cohort or cabal of psychopaths with malthusian aspirations to significantly decrease the population, have launched a war on the elderly through euthanasia, and it is even tied to the vaccine holocaust agenda.