Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I've sat in this House and listened to this debate as the bill has progressed to the third reading and I must admit that I've been just disheartened by the lack of understanding perhaps wilful that some members have shown towards the perspectives of the other. I've been particularly disheartened by the way in which some who are in favour of this bill have been dismissive of the perspective of those against by waving away their rational arguments as being motivated purely by a member's personal religion or faith. I'm opposed to this bill not because of the tenets of any religion but because of scientific philosophical and ethical premises which I hold to as clear and logical. I accept that those in favour of the bill do so because they approach the bill with very different premises which I can understand though I do not agree with them.First I hold to the scientific premise that the unborn child is a human being a fact so incontrovertible that I simply assert it. The second premise follows on from that; that as a living human being the unborn child is indeed a human person. This is a philosophical premise which I believe is logical and indeed the only safe and humane ethical position. The child has its own DNA a heartbeat and can feel pain. My third premise is an ethical one; that as a human person the unborn baby is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and as a player in the ethical question of abortion in the same way that the mother of the child is. There is no doubt that the above beliefs have been influenced by my experiences in life from being raised in a large family of five children to seeing my own daughter kick and wriggle through ultrasound imaging in my wife's womb to my fundamental belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being regardless of age sex ability and yes even political belief. One year ago today my daughter was not born; tomorrow she was. But she would have no rights for one year ago today. The reality is that we're all every last one of us shaped by our culture our experiences and our own most fundamental beliefs. These form the core of our being. A wise person can understand and identify how these beliefs and experiences shape them and perhaps there are none so blind as those who can see the biases and influences of others but are blind to the ideologies that shape their own. I would plead with members of this House not to allow themselves to hide behind the excuse that those who disagree only do so because they are influenced by ideology or religion or something else. To do so only shows blindness and the fact that we are all influenced. No we should be brave enough to pause listen to the arguments try for a moment to understand them from the perspective of the one delivering them and then refute them reasonably rather than simply label them or put a sticker on them because that's what's happened in our past.From this position I ask members to consider: is it ethical that New Zealand law should allow for the abortion of an unborn child at 24 weeks for any reason whatsoever when the child would be viable outside the womb? Is it ethical that this bill makes it legal and allows for abortion purely on the basis that there's a possibility that the child may have a disability? Is it ethical that under this law an abortion would be permitted to be sought purely on the basis of a preference for a particular sex? The bill before this House would allow abortion in each and every one of these circumstances a fact which I and many other New Zealanders find shocking. It is shocking that our law denies the personhood of a baby that can survive outside the womb. Only wilful moral philosophical and scientific blindness could fathom this. It is shocking that this law allows for discrimination against unborn baby girls purely on the basis of their sex under the guise of a woman's right to choose. Who will defend the rights of these unborn girls? It is shocking that persons with Down syndrome dwarfism and spina bifida can be legally targeted purely on the basis of their disability as though their disability gave them less of a right to life. All lives matter: old or young male or female black or white born or unborn. This bill is unethical and I urge MPs to reject it.