By Alan Mercer
Continuing from Part 7
World Medical Association (WMA)
The following is a statement of ethics by the World Medical Association that protects the freedom of conscience of doctors: WMA Declaration on Therapeutic Abortion. I’m just highlighting a few of the relevant statements:
1. The WMA requires the physician to maintain respect for human life. . . .
3. . . . the diversity of attitudes towards the life of the unborn child. This is a matter of individual conviction and conscience that must be respected.
4. . . . it is our duty to attempt both to ensure the protection of our patients and to safeguard the rights of the physician within society. . . .
6. If the physician’s convictions do not allow him or her to advise or perform an abortion, he or she may withdraw while ensuring the continuity of medical care by a qualified colleague.
There is a little ambiguity in the last statement regarding referral, but overall it is supporting the principle of freedom of conscience.
And this should be a no-brainer for everyone. But it isn’t.
There are those who persist in their fanatical desire to impose abortion, conformity, and population control.
And they have already propagandized Canadian society–and the world–using various crises of one kind or another–to such a degree that there are no fundamental freedoms remaining that can be taken for granted.
Officially, as far as abortion and “family values”, all that remains is the shell of some fake opposition from posturing political parties filled with “representatives” who take their orders from party bosses.
And the main concern of party bosses of all stripes now, in addition to attending international meetings and signing international treaties, seems to be about dropping bombs in the Middle East.
Just like euthanasia is promoted, just like other procedures and concepts being promoted, abortion is sold to the public as a desirable “right” and as something to do with freedom.
But why not count up the overall poor service when it comes to health care, count up the ineffectiveness of treatments in general, count up the extent of illnesses we’re plagued by as well as the deaths in our families, count up the number of people on disabling long-term drugs, and count the number of people who are not being born–when you are making an assessment of “rights” and “choices”.
Will we really be safer and freer when more and more doctors (as those with the “wrong” convictions are pressured to leave the profession) are pressuring us into getting sterilized and having abortions?
Whose convenience does all of this really serve?
Add it all up, and think about it rationally as a mortal human being with limited resources and limited time. Where is the benefit for your family and heritage?
Now I’m just going to make a comparison to this “climate change” doctrine that the United Nations continues to actively promote. This is the idea that extreme weather conditions are caused by the emission of carbon dioxide from normal activities such as burning fuel and breathing. However, burning fuel is necessary for our survival, and carbon dioxide is a clean by-product of that process which is essential for all plant life.
All this means is that some group wants to impose greater suffering on us (“equalizing” us) in terms of taxes and in terms of restrictions on our lives (how we heat our homes and how we travel).
Will we really be safer and freer–and healthier–when we have to pay out more of our income towards carbon taxes?
The public in general fail to accurately assess the intentions of those who promote these changes at the top.
One of the purposes of the climate change doctrine is clearly to justify population reduction.
And one of the purposes of the attack on freedom of conscience in Ontario (for example) is to speed up population reduction.
Those who are accepting these things blindly will become the sell-outs while most people in general will suffer greater poverty (directly from taxes and regulations) and greater economic pressure to accept sterilization, abortion and euthanasia (and other things possibly, like organ “donation”, and innovative forms of food, working as “porn” stars, etc.)
Governments and those in power will have greater “freedom” to do what they want. As objective morality has been displaced by philosophical hucksters, there are more and more amazing options and choices for international banks and governments as they get away with policies (“bail-ins”) that people in the past with their brains a little more intact would have likely rejected as immoral and horrific. Just paint it all as “progress” and play the right-left theater so the public just blames the other party for what they all agree on anyway.
Who holds the elites back from doing whatever they want? Who is going to stop the huge secret trade agreements they’re negotiating right now which are going to change so many things to do with our economies and systems of government. What about the vaccinations they’re pumping out? Do you read the ingredients? These are subsidized by your government–in their budgets in black and white. And these pharma companies are protected from lawsuits by your government. Who is going to question or stop the GMO (genetically modified) food that we’re not even officially informed about in any sense?
Do you hold the governments and corporations accountable? Does your sense of morality prevail, or does it take a back seat to the television programming?
The only ones who benefit from these so-far successful attempts to radically change society are those who seek greater power, and that goes hand in hand with population reduction.
We’ve covered the influence of the Fabian Society at this website–including H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Aldous Huxley, Julian Huxley, and Bertrand Russell. Their ideas were never just intended to be ideas. Those ideas became taxation policies and welfare policies and “environmental” policies–always about greater centralization, data collection and control–like Agenda 21.
H. G. Wells wrote about his “utopian” ideal of a society that had control over human biology and population.
The post-war financial system was founded by Fabian Maynard Keynes.
Fabian Aldous Huxley called for population control measures and global “education” and “conservation” measures in Brave New World Revisited.
The United Nations (of Julian Huxley) and private foundations have been carrying out policies that are funded by the Canadian government and other governments for many years now.
As we’ve covered in the previous section, one of the common themes of all of those United Nations websites and documents is population control. A big part of the acceptance of these changes has to do with “education” and “attitude” modification.
Value for value. If you appreciate this post, please donate a small amount to encourage more research and commentary.