June 02, 2009

It Will Never Make Sense To Me

This is something that just keeps going round and round in my mind, and I am having a hard time coming to terms with it.

There has been much discussion about the pros and cons of "water boarding" and whether or not it constitutes "torture." Also, of great concern are the "rights" of the recipients of the water boarding technique.

I know what the word "torture" means, as defined by a dictionary, and I know what the word conjures up in my own mind. What I really don't understand is what the difference might be if a "terrorist" is tortured by the water boarding method, as compared to an abortion, and especially, a partial-birth abortion performed on an innocent fetus, in terms of suffering.

Maybe what I'm really trying to reconcile in my own mind, is how the opponents of water boarding, who vehemently protest the cruelty of it, and diligently pursue "justice" and "protection of civil rights" for the recipients of it, justify the pain and suffering endured by the innocents who have done nothing, but are tortured in the most inhumane way during an abortion--while at the same time loudly protesting the mistreatment of some very bad people intent on killing us, one and all.

I looked up a few things about both subjects. Perhaps, you will tell me what you think, after we compare the two.

Water Boarding

Water boarding as it is currently described involves strapping a person to an inclined board, with his feet raised and his head lowered. The interrogators bind the person's arms and legs so he can't move at all, and they cover his face. In some descriptions, the person is gagged, and some sort of cloth covers his nose and mouth; in others, his face is wrapped in cellophane. The interrogator then repeatedly pours water onto the person's face. Depending on the exact setup, the water may or may not actually get into the person's mouth and nose; but the physical experience of being underneath a wave of water seems to be secondary to the psychological experience. The person's mind believes he is drowning, and his gag reflex kicks in as if he were choking on all that water falling on his face.

Pain In The Unborn

“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies.”– Steven Calvin, perinatologist, University of Minnesota

An unborn child at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain... Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”– Robert J. White, MD., Ph.D. professor of neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University

“At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG)”– Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

An unborn child has less legal protection from feeling pain than commercial livestock.

In a slaughterhouse, a method of slaughter is deemed legally humane only if “all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical,chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted,thrown, cast, or cut.” (Section 2 of the Humane Slaughter Act, 7 USC 1902).By contrast, D&E abortions, performed as late as 24 weeks (well after the child begins to feel pain), involve the dismemberment of the unborn child by a pair of sharp metal forceps.(9) Instillation methods of abortion (performed even in the third trimester) involve the replacement of up to one cup of amniotic fluid with a concentrated salt solution, which the unborn child inhales as the salt burns her skin.The child lives in this condition for up to an hour. In neither of these techniques is the unborn child provided with any form of anesthesia(1013)

Robert George writes in his essay, "Obama and His Pro-Life Apologists," something rather thought provoking:

"President Obama knows that an unborn baby is human. He knows that the blood shed by the abortionist’s knife is human blood, that the bones broken are human bones. He does not deny that the baby whom nurse Jill Stanek discovered gasping for breath in a soiled linen bin after a failed attempt to end her life by abortion, was a human baby. Even in opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was designed to assure that such babies were rescued if possible or at least given comfort care while they died, Barack Obama did not deny the humanity of the child. What he denied, and continues to deny, is the fundamental equality of that child—equality with those of us who are safely born and accepted into the human community."

The sad part of all of this, is that the President is not the only one who persists in defending the rights of the women who choose to abort, and the abortionists, but sadder, still, is the fact that they all put more value on the well-being, and lives of a terrorist, than they do on an innocent little child who has no one to come to his defense as a human being with the right to live.

Is water boarding worse than being burned alive, poisoned, or torn to pieces?

I am not saying that I like, or condone, anyone, or anything, having to suffer pain and agony. I am just having a hard time accepting that there are actually people who think that some lives are more valuable than others, or, at least, are willing to take that stand for political gain.

It will never make sense to me.

*The above post was written last Saturday, to be published on Sunday. I decided not to post it on Sunday because of the content, and decided to wait until Monday. Of course, we all know what happened Sunday morning--Dr. Tiller, the late term abortion doctor was shot and killed while he was attending church. That, in itself, is a tragedy. It is nothing to rejoice over, no matter what one's opinion concerning abortion happens to be, pro, or con. However, it seems that some have chosen to use it, politically, to condemn all those not in agreement with their own point of view, and in anticipation of this heinous act furthering the cause of pro choice advocates.

The President has condemned this horrible act, as of course, he should. However, there is something else to be considered here, as well. Again, it comes right back to which life is more valuable than another.

On Monday, two young soldiers, only recently having finished basic training, were gunned down in cold blood in front of a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas. One died, and the other was seriously wounded. They were shot by another American, recently converted to Islam, for no other reason than the fact that he hated the military, and Americans for what he thought they had done to Muslims.

That act was just as heinous as the one who took the life of Dr. Tiller, yet I have heard no public condemnation, no pubic outcry.

So, what does this mean?

That the lives of these young soldiers who had committed to die for the citizens of this country, no matter the religion, color, or creed, is less valuable than the life of someone who is committed to assisting citizens in ending the lives of unborn babies? That murder matters only when it happens to some individuals, and not to others? It all depends on who commits the murder, or is murdered?

Equality? Who is making that determination, and what does it mean, in terms of humanity?

Ironically, I'm sure that all involved in the two incidences--the doctor, his killer, and the Muslim convert, all believed that they were doing the right thing.

It is still making my mind go round and round, and I just don't get it.

As I said before, it will never make sense to me.

God help us all...obviously, nobody else can.

"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

Proverbs 16:25