NOTRadio_3.2.12

Today's Show:  ABORTION

Today, Chris talks about an article citing experts saying "abortion is the same as killing babies."  Chris discusses the file "Lake Of Fire" which shows behind the scenes footage of both anti-abortion extremists and abortionists.  Learn more about the issue of abortion, what Americans, especially Christian Americans should do, and why abortion is such a controversial issue in the rising ecumenical movements.

By clicking this icon you will be directed to our archives page in order to get an mp3 version of today's show. With this file you can listen to Noise of Thunder from your iPod or MP3 player whenever you want.

Comments

[Dok]

You are quite right Chris in that this is just a sick idea, and it is only getting worse. The Eugenics Movement is making a come back. They just arent pushing killing babies in the womb anymore, they want to kill whomever when ever.

Here is the original article for this.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

This is just sick and disgusting. Yet it has gotten worse in the last couple of years the ideas that are being promoted out there. Here are some other headlines to show just how bad it is getting.

Euthanasia Squads To Deliver Death To Your Door
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/euthanasia-squads-offer-death-by-delivery-7469070.html

A New Eugenics for a New Day
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2012/01/a-new-eugenics-for-a-new-day.html

Physicians argue for right to kill
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1326194

Does ‘human rights’ now mean the right to kill infants?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/does-human-rights-now-mean-the-right-to-kill-infants-vatican-newspaper?utm

Elderly patients condemned to early death by secret use of do not resuscitate orders
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/8829350/Elderly-patients-condemned-to-early-death-by-secret-use-of-do-not-resuscitate-orders.html

Washington State lawyer suggests expanding euthanasia/assisted suicide to those not terminally ill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/washington-state-lawyer-suggests-expanding-euthanasia-assisted-suicide-to-t

That is just a drop in the bucket of what is really going on. Here is proof positve that eugenics has made a come back

Eugenic Judge ordered abortion and sterilization !!!!
http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Feb12/Art_Feb12_10.html

Judge says ordering of abortion was justified
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-21/metro/31080054_1_christina-harms-appeals-court-family-court

[gigi]

Hi Chris,
recently in one of your radio shows you mention the fact that Sherwood Productions(the makers of the movie "Courageous") come out and endorsed the papacy .
Could you provide the source or a link for that?
thank you
and keep up the good fight !
regards
gigi

[Dok]

Eugenics to make a big come back in Australia...

Proposed new Mental Health Bill Australia – Children to be Sterilized. 12 Year Olds Can Consent to Psychosurgery and Electroshock!

Please read below for the main points:

CHILDREN OF ANY AGE TO CONSENT TO STERILISATION: If a psychiatrist decides that a child (under 18 years) has sufficient maturity, he or she will be able to consent to sterilisation. Parental consent will not be needed. Only after the sterilisation procedure has been performed does it have to be reported and then only to the Chief Psychiatrist. [Pages: 135 & 136 of the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011]

12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO PSYCHOSURGERY: Banned in N.S.W. and the N.T., psychosurgery irreversibly damages the brain by surgery, burning or inserting electrodes. This draft bill proposes to allow a 12 year old child, if considered to be sufficiently mature by a psychiatrist, to be able to consent to psychosurgery. Once the child has consented it goes before the Mental Health Tribunal (MHT) for approval. Parental consent is also not needed for the MHT to approve the psychosurgery. [Pages: 108, 109, 110, 197,198, 199, 213]

12 YEAR OLDS WILL BE ABLE TO CONSENT TO ELECTROSHOCK (ECT): Electroshock is hundreds of volts of electricity to the head. Any child aged 12 and over, whom a child and adolescent psychiatrist decides is “mature” enough, will be able to consent to electroshock. Also, once consent is given, there is no requirement for parents or anyone, including the MHT, to approve the electroshock. Electroshock should be banned. Its use on the elderly, pregnant women and children is especially destructive. [Pages: 100, 101, 103, 104, 194, 105]

RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION OF CHILDREN: Children can be restrained in a psychiatric institution, with the use of mechanical restraint (manacles, belts, straps etc.) and bodily force. Chemical restraint – the use of psychiatric drugs to subdue and control the person – is not covered in the draft bill, so there are no legal safeguards to prevent its application. Death can result from all forms of restraint. [Pages: 122, 121, 113, 246]

INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN: A psychiatrist can involuntarily detain any child for up to 14 days if “suspected” of mental illness. Parents will not be able to discharge their child during this period and take them home. The psychiatrist can then make a “continuation order” to continue the detainment for up to 3 months and thereafter for each subsequent 3 month period. During detainment, the child could be drugged, restrained, secluded, given electroshock if over 12 and could be put into a ward with adults. Parental consent is not required to continue the detainment or for any treatment, including the child being placed on a legal order to continue to receive drugs at home. The MHT hold hearings on the detainment of a child, but there is no guarantee the child will be able to go home. In 2010/11 there were 1,248 hearings for all ages and only 58 people had their status changed from involuntary to voluntary. [Pages: 21, 22, 35, 19, 107, 36, 53, 54, 183 -185, 190, 191, 213, 214,18, 46, 47, 48, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75-77]

WHO WILL BE ABLE TO DETAIN A CHILD IS NOT FULLY KNOWN: An “authorised mental health practitioner” can also detain a child or adult in the draft bill. Exactly who an authorised mental health practitioner is, is not defined by the draft bill. The Chief Psychiatrist can literally give anyone or any profession the power to detain someone just because he considers they are qualified and by publishing the decision in the Gazette. This clause must be removed from the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011. Only a judge or magistrate should have the power to order someone be detained, and only with full legal representation for the person facing depravation of liberty [Pages: 246, 247, 21, 22]

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DRAFT BILL?: The W.A. Mental Health Commission (MHC) were responsible for writing the Draft Mental Health Bill 2011, with Mental Health Commissioner and clinical psychologist, Mr Eddie Bartnik overseeing the process.

http://sovereignindependent.co.uk/2012/03/04/proposed-new-mental-health-bill-australia-children-to-be-sterilized-12-year-clds-can-consent-to-psychosurgery-and-electroshock/

[Enquirer]

After listening to the show my thoughts were that this article was an attack to counter the enormous publicity that the Nikkita/Whant case (in February) had given to the cause of the unborn child. Nikkita's baby was referred to as a "baby" not a foetus in the main stream media and drew an enormous amount of sympathy and interest from the UK population.

"Carl Whant was charged with killing Nikitta's unborn baby under a rarely-used law.
As the baby had not been born, legally he could not be accused of murder so instead he faced a child destruction charge.
The offence is rarely used in court and Whant is believed to be one of the few people charged with it in the last 10 years.
It covers those who kill unborn babies who are 'capable of being born alive'.
It usually applies if the woman has been pregnant for 28 weeks or more - Nikitta had been pregnant for 38.
The crime was created in the 1929 under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act.
The act read: 'Any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother.
'Shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life.'
The crime is punishable with life in prison - the same as murder.
David Wooler, Crown Advocate for the Crown Prosecution Service in Wales, said: 'I decided that Carl Whant should also be charged with the offence of child destruction, under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act of 1929.
'This is an offence which prohibits wilful acts causing the death of any child capable of being born alive - and given the advanced stage of Nikitta Grender's pregnancy, Kelsey-May certainly fit that description.
'Child destruction is, thankfully, a very rarely used charge; we are not aware of another case like this one in Wales.
'When the legislation was originally drafted in the 1920s, it was intended to be used to curb the activities of back-street abortionists.
'But in a more modern setting, it can be applied to cases where an offender deliberately takes the life of an unborn child through a violent or aggressive act.' "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2104792/Nikitta-Grender-trial-Boyfriends-cousin-Carl-Whant-guilty-rape-killing-pregnant-teenager.html