Pro-lifers should oppose torture, not defend it
This qualifies for a (very long) quote of the day:
[T]he thing I find most baffling about all this: the spectacle of pro-lifers going to the mat to defend torture, all while claiming that it is virtually impossible to even know what torture is.
The ridiculous and insulting tendency among so many who do this is to imply that if you oppose torture you do so because you are secretly supporting abortion or trying to derail the pro-life movement. The obvious reply to this is that it is precisely Catholic pro-life belief that rejects the ends-justifies-the-means thinking behind both abortion and torture advocacy.
If pro-lifers would simply stop defending the use of torture, there’d be no problem and I for one would never make another peep about it. But the fact is (as Raymond Arroyo, Marc (“Scott Brown Shows Waterboarding Wins”) Thiessen, Austin Ruse and a depressing roster of other prolife Catholics demonstrate in percentages greater than the average population, we are now so required to be in bed with whatever consequentialism the GOP leadership demands that a principled prolife stand that rejects consequentialism in all its forms is spoken of as betrayal of the prolife movement.
The solution is simple: it’s not that Catholics who repeat the plain and repeated teaching of the Church should be quiet about torture. It’s that Catholics who claim to have no idea if the Bush Administration committed torture or not (since they are helpless to define torture) should stop defending what everybody (including the Reagan Administration and the Vatican, as well as Geneva, the UN, Britain and the Red Cross, as well as the rest of the civilized world) calls torture.
Via Andrew, who has written about the torture issue extensively, and most recently here. There is simply no moral or legal justification for torture. I have a hard time really even writing about the issue or playing semantics with defenders of the Bush administration on this subject. I find it morally reprehensible, a dark stain on the legacy of the United States and a blight on the conservative movement. The sooner conservatives distance themselves from this the better – but judging from Cheney’s reception at CPAC that will be a long time indeed.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
So, if I support abortion, it’s okay for me to support torture?
Yes that must be exactly what I’m saying.
In response to another comment. See in context »It’s ironic that Cheney knew gay bashing was a short sighted political strategy in 2002 and 2004, did not participate in it, and likely told others that it wasn’t a good idea… yet here he is imagining that being pro-torture is going to win elections now and somehow be a winning position going into the future.
I have faith that the majority of people will come around on this. Anyone in a debate with a pro-torture candidate (especially a proud one like Scott Brown) should challenge them to undergo EITs/torture for just one day. Say your campaign will hire the SERE consultant and everything.
I don’t think he’s saying “support torture as a campaign platform” as much as he’s saying Obama SHOULD be torturing to get info, if it is needed.
In response to another comment. See in context »Being a strong supporter of waterboarding is what conservatives are crediting for Scott Brown’s success. Go watch any of the CPAC speeches going on now and see how waterboarding is mentioned.
It’s going to be in political ads:
Candidate X thinks that we should treat terrorists like regular criminals… give them trials in our courts, keep them in our towns, give them free lawyers, and tell them they don’t have to tell us anything.
Candidate Y knows that we need to get all of the information that terrorists know about imminent attacks, and supports tough interrogation to find out. Vote for safety. Vote for protecting freedom. Vote for Candidate Y.
I guarantee we’ll see ads along those lines. Remember the ads linking Democrats to Osama bin Laden in 2002 and 2004?
In response to another comment. See in context »Scott Brown’s position on waterboarding was a huge disappointment for me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Scott Brown’s position on Waterboarding isn’t what won the election. A piss poor opponent and an out of touch Democrat Party is what made it possible.
Funny, everybody here seems to complain about torture, yet nobody here can honestly say that killing an unborn child isn’t exactly a pleasant practice either.
In response to another comment. See in context »… and abortion comes out of nowhere. Who says that abortion can’t be violent or at least uncomfortable? The myth that women cavort around assuming they can just have another painless abortion is disgusting.
I didn’t say he didn’t win for other reasons; I’m saying that torture advocates credited his position on torture as a major factor in his win to justify their own disgusting position. Conservatives think torture will help win; the sad thing is that it probably will in the short term. I’ve got enough confidence in humanity to know that it won’t win out in the long term, and hope that people turn against torture before the idiots who want to practice it get back in power.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m both amazed and disgusted at how pro-lifers have embraced the practice of torture and succumbed to morally relativistic arguments in its favor. Not only do they defend a grave evil, they undermine their credibility on the issue they claim to care the most about. Part of their support for torture may stem from a perversion of a pro-life disposition: in order to defend life and limb, in order to keep us safe and secure, they justify barbarism. They see their defense of torture as a defense of what is necessary to protect life. Pro-lifers would do well to remember that there are worse things than death.
zach, what does abortion have to do with torture policy to begin with? The author was trying to make the assumption that ALL people who are pro life MUST be in favor of torture as well. While the majority probably DO think that way, there are some people who are pro choice, but recognize that in the 21st Century, “torture” might be helpful in protecting lives.
I’d rather our government do unsavory things to people who would blow me and you up, (regardless of our political affiliations) than just let them sit in jail and every now and again give them the old “got anything to say?”