So you are the sole arbiter and you have no problem for others to conform to your code but you have no reason to defer to somebody else's version, yet you don’t consider it to be an egocentrism view.
Yes, I, my ego alone, decides what I consider good and bad, right and wrong. I am a humanist, and my values include tolerance and promoting human development. I want to see the most people have the greatest opportunity to pursue happiness as they understand that. Is that egocentric? I suppose it is in a sense, but it is not selfish.
What is conscience or the inner voice?
I can only tell you what a conscience feels like, what values it imposes on me, and the cost of being in conflict with my conscience (guilt, shame, regret). It's the source of empathy. I can also tell you that many people appear to have little or no conscience, and exhibit sociopathic behavior (lack of empathy). I suspect that its substrate like all conscious phenomena is neuronal.
individuals may disagree but in this case who gets to decide and why?
Depends if we're discussing individual choices or structuring society. Regarding abortion, each individual decides for him- or herself how he or she feels about that, but in Western democracies, voters, judges, and legislators decide what will be legal.
Premarital sex is the main reason for the problem of abortion.
I don't consider abortion a problem, but I do consider lack of access to it a problem, and an unwanted pregnancy another problem. I don't know what fraction of unwanted pregnancies resulted from premarital sex. Nor do I care. I have no issue with premarital sex except to say that I recommend it to everybody getting married and also to everybody not get married.
Once a new life comes to existence, no one has the right to end it.
As a legal matter, that depends on the law. Most women in free nations other than America have protected access to safe and affordable abortions. As a moral issue, that's a personal decision, assuming that there is a choice.
It’s neither moral nor acceptable. What is your conscience telling you about such conduct?
I don't like that there are unwanted pregnancies, because I neither like abortion nor forced births. For me, as a man, the moral issue was never about having an abortion, but whether women should have access to the option, that is, who makes the choice of whether any unwanted pregnancy comes to term - the potential mother or the church using the power of the state. As I said, I'm a humanist, and I support empowering these women with the options necessary to manage their lives. If a college girl gets pregnant and chooses to finish her education before starting a family, which might require her dropping out of school and taking a waitressing job, then I want her to have that power over her own life.
The interactions of matter do not give rise to conscience, self-awareness or the ability to have qualia of any kind.
So you say. I don't have a dog in that hunt, but materialism and consciousness being an epiphenomenon of matter is very much a possibility. Why does it matter if you're right or wrong? The commonest reason theists argue this point in my experience is because of believing that the fundamental reality is an immaterial god (mind), and they see matter as its creation, making them metaphysical idealists.
These characteristics of your inner being are non-physical and continue beyond the non-functioning physical body.
I have no reason to believe that anything is non-physical or that consciousness persists beyond death. Maybe, but maybe not, and there is little support for the maybe beyond things like near death experiences, which are not convincing.
Did you ever notice the duality/ struggle between your physical body and the inner voice of your conscience?
Sure, but I'd frame it differently. We all have more than one inner voice. Sometimes, they give conflicting instructions and we experience cognitive dissonance. Like you, I have urges that come from my reptilian and mammalian brains, and desires that come from higher human centers (reason and conscience). One says fight or flee and the other says do neither, a third possibility will work out better. One says to get a drink and the other says you need to fast for surgery tomorrow. But nothing beyond that, and those states are brief and mild.
the debate is among the experts themselves. See the link below.
That's a different debate. There are differences within the scientific community, but not over whether evolution or intelligent creation occurred. That's the debate to which I was referring - creationists disagreeing with the scientists. The scientists aren't debating them or hearing them.
Then I'm finding that if others do not agree that humans are animals like apes and perhaps bugs, some will take offense when challenged and tell others they are not educated, etc. Or harrassing them. 
