XnForums

Is waterboarding torture? If it is, we’ve been torturing our service members for years. As a United States Naval Aviator, I attended SERE school in the California desert in 1985. SERE (which stands for Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape) prepares combatants for the possibility that they might be taken prisoners of war.

While many aspects of the training remain classified, I can say that we received treatment far more challenging and uncomfortable than anything the terrorists ever experienced at Gitmo or Abu Grab. As has been reported elsewhere, waterboarding was common at SERE school as it was in my class. It was done to help us resist giving up sensitive information in the event we were interrogated by the enemy. SERE is probably the most impactful training I’ve ever experienced.

Now, despite decades of its use on American service members, President Obama declares that waterboarding is torture when used on terrorists. Is it? Reasonable people cannot disagree whether scalding a person’s skin, dismembering him, or beheading him constitutes torture. Those are undeniably torturous acts that our enemies have inflicted on Americans. But since waterboarding leaves no permanent physical damage, reasonable people can disagree over whether or not it’s actually torture and should be used on terrorists. I’ll address that question in a future column.

What I’d like to address in this column is the shocking inconsistency of the President’s position. Despite being against waterboarding, President Obama does not seem to think that scalding, dismembering, or beheading is torture in all circumstances. In some circumstances, the President actually approves of such treatment, so much so that he is now exporting it to other countries with our tax dollars. He’s even thinking of forcing certain Americans to inflict it on the innocent.

In fact, the President along with most in his party and some in the Republican Party, think that such brutality is a Constitutional right, which they cleverly disguise with the word “choice.” Choice in these circumstances actually means scalding, dismembering, or de-braining a living human being—which is literally what saline, D&C, and partial birth abortions respectively accomplish. (Before anyone labels me an “extremist” for making this point, realize that I’m just factually describing what these procedures literally do. In my opinion, the “extremists” are those who deny these verifiable truths.)

The President might say that the comparison doesn’t work because we’re not sure about the humanity of the unborn. He said as much in the Rick Warren debate when he declared that the question of life’s beginning was “above his pay grade.” Well, if there’s any doubt about when life begins, shouldn’t you err on the side of caution and protect what may be a human being? If you’re not sure whether the rustling in the bushes is a deer or your daughter, won’t you get a certain ID before shooting?

Actually, there is no doubt about the humanity of the unborn. We are sure that an unborn child is a human being, and we know this not by religion, but by hard scientific data. The President knows this. If embryonic life is not human, then why does he insist on using taxpayer dollars to harvest embryonic cells? Answer: because they are human. Moreover, human bodies and body parts are extracted from the womb by abortion, not just “tissue.” Finally, it’s a scientific fact that at the moment of conception a new genetically unique human being exists. You haven’t received any new genetic information since the moment you were conceived. Only four things separated you from adulthood—time, air, water and food. Those are the same four things that separate a two-year old from adulthood. We don’t allow the killing of two-year old humans; why should we allow the killing of humans just a little bit younger who happen to be in a womb—especially those at full term?

But the legality of abortion is not the main point here. That’s bad enough, but the President is advocating something even worse. He isn’t just allowing abortion to continue, he seeks to promote and subsidize it through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). That deceptively-named bill will end the choice of certain doctors to conscientiously refuse to do abortions, and it will end the choices millions of Americans have made to restrict abortion through parental notification laws, informed consent laws, and even bans on partial birth abortion. All of those restrictions freely chosen by the people of this country will be invalidated by FOCA. The President also wants to force taxpayers to pay for abortions right here in America. Continued...

Doesn't your president make you proud?

continue below...

http://townhall.com/Columnists/FrankTurek/2009/05/06/politically_correct_torture

I have a great idea...why don't we suck the brains out of the terrorists, and call it a late term abortion...

That would make you libs happy, wouldn't it?

Eerie how I knew you got your stuff from Turek.

The difference between us, Clean Sword, is that I actually READ the other side and comprehend the arguments sufficiently to respond. You…don’t.

If only Cleansword would concentrate his effort on Christians who are killing their unborn, then we might not be forced to defend our own rights against his accusations.

So why is it Clean, that you do not demand that Christians stop killing their own in the womb?

Help me understand somethng. If the majority of people in the U.S. claim Christianity as their religion and Jesus as their savior, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the majority of abortions are among the Christians? So why blame Obama for being unable to control the actions of Christians? If Christians don't want to have babies, then why do they get themselves knocked-up? I think its reasonable to conclude that Christians want and support abortion more than any other religion in America simply because Christians are the largest religious body in America.

Freedom of Choice Act? According to the bible, Christians have no choice.

Why isn't the churches talking to men and women about abortion in the body of Christianity? Why doesn't the church do its business of controling its membership? Just tell Christians they are not allowed to get knocked-up out of wedlock and if they do, they are to suffer the consequences in punishment from judgment of the elders of the church. The bible is supposed to be the all governing source for Christians so why don't they judge their Christian brothers and sisters according to what God demands? Do Christians not pray "thy will be done, on earth as in heaven?" Isn't it time the Christians got back to the bible and out of everybody else's business? Else, what benefit is there for Christians to have a body called "the church"?

Instead of blaming Obama, Christians should be blaming themselves. Tell Dobson, Robertson, and others to get their belt straps out and start whipping the shit out of their membership. They deserve it.

Am I missing something CleanSword?

"It would make you liberals happy"..

Your happiness is not supposed to be dependent on the world outside your religion of Christianity. And your Christianity does not have any authority in the world. Your body called "Christ in you", is not Christ in the world. IOW, you are invading another land wherein you are not welcome. You will be beaten back into your own CHURCH. Your Church is the only place you have authority to speak against people, your own membership. You lack of understanding this is why you and other Christians attract such animosity towards yourselves.

Your bible instructs you that the world is to be of no concern to you. Your world of Christianity is a different place that you are supposed to help instruct and rule over. You can there teach from your bible to fellow Christians against abortion. That is your right within your own body of people called Christians. Outside your body, you're wasting your time.

Now, go preach to your fellow Christians and tell them to stop killing their babes in their wombs. Tell them to stop sucking the brains out of their unborn children. Tell them to stop having lil bastards that are shameful to your God. They are supposed to be married and to a one man one woman arrangement. If you find any "queers" as Joe the plumber says it, excommuniicate them into hell fire via the death penalty as your god commands you to do.

That is ignorance gone to seed!

Do you not think any normal person who sees an injustice committed in front of them has a moral
responsibility to intervene if possible?

But, according to your logic(?), christians shouldn't do or say anything unless it happens in a church or
among christians.

Tell that to the little baby about to have his brain sucked out..

clean'

And, of course, you came up with your philosophy all by yourself.

I have read both sides, in college, and in life. No matter what the intellectuals
say, abortion is the murder of a baby.You can comprehend all the arguments you want,
but, you know what abortion is, regardless of the argument for it or against it.

clean'

Blah.......blah........blah.........blablabla.

Same old FundaGelical nonsense.

YOL!

(Yawning Out Loud.)

And another articulate liberal shows up...How can I argue against such a persuasive
word-smith such as yourself?

Whenever you can put together a coherent rebuttal, let me know.
I know you can....you just put four words together...But, if you're having trouble......
Ham is very good at putting sentences together...I'm sure he will help get you started..


clean'

Clean Sword,

So let’s play a game. If you know the arguments for both sides—what would be the argument countering Turek’s article? I’ll help you on the way—what is the difference between torture and abortion?

Ok, let me see.. what's the difference between putting a bug in someones' cell and
killing a baby. The terrorist lived, the baby didn't..

clean'

You already know the argument countering Turek's article. As do I...I'm not going to
make your argument for you.

Ok, let me see.. what's the difference between putting a bug in someones' cell (torture)
and killing a baby (abortion)? The terrorist is still alive, the baby is dead ..

I hope that clears up your confusion.

clean'

Posted it twice

clean'

The point you miss is that this society, the USA, and this culture, western civilization, legally sanction murder in many forms. Abortion is simply another legally sanctioned murder. Why should it be treated any different from other forms of legally sanctioned murder?

*shrug* No. You don’t. And I surmise it is obvious to everyone including you that you do not. I was interested in whether you really did read and comprehend other side’s positions. I doubted (from the way you present your own position) you did.

Carry on…