How in the world can a medical association be neutral on granting doctors a license to kill or assist the suicide of their patients? This is a matter of the gravest medical ethical concern, an action, remember, that was strictly proscribed 2,500 years ago in the Hippocratic Oath.
Two bills currently moving through the California Legislature reveal how committed the state’s progressive political leaders are to imposing legal hegemony favoring LGBT social agendas.
In February, I warned about a treaty being negotiated to empower the WHO to declare a pandemic, which would trigger governments assuming emergency powers.
The potential associated consequences of intense sexual affairs with adults, such as emotional turmoil, unplanned pregnancies, and pressures to abort, are burdens against which all young people should be protected.
The major science journals are growing increasingly hard left politically. The prestigious journal Science, in particular, has swallowed progressive ideology–including supporting the “nature rights” movement.
Once killing the sufferer becomes a societally acceptable means for ending suffering, there becomes no end to the “suffering” that justifies human termination. We can see this phenomenon most vividly in Canada, because it is happening there more quickly than in most cultures. For example, a recent poll found that 27 percent of Canadians polled strongly or moderately agree that euthanasia is acceptable for suffering caused by “poverty” and 28 percent strongly or moderately agree that killing by doctors is acceptable for suffering caused by homelessness. Euthanasia mutates a society’s soul. I can’t imagine that being true ten years ago before euthanasia became legal. This kind of abandoned thinking finds enthusiastic, albeit not unanimous, expression among …
If, for some reason, H.B. 3162 does not make it all the way through the legislative process to law, may the lawsuits pour down like hail on Texas hospitals that impose futile-care impositions.
Almost all notable science journals promote progressive ideology, and Nature — perhaps the world’s most prestigious science journal — is one of the worst of these propagandizers. The publication recently provided a platform to equity advocate Erika Nesvold, co-founder of JustSpace Alliance, who advocates “for a more inclusive and ethical future in space.” In the interview, she argues that future space colonies — which she would consider a verboten term — should be governed similarly to places like San Francisco. From “Ethics in Outer Space: Can We Make Interplanetary Exploration Just: You talk about ‘settling’ space, rather than colonizing it. Why? Because of all the terrible behaviour that came out of the colonization …
This is the kind of thinking that results from rejecting the intrinsic moral value of human life. Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer — who is most famous for secularly blessing infanticide — just compared abortion to turning off a computer.