The Basis of Debate

In our Catholic Morality Lesson of the Day, NRO's editor has this to say: Our religious morality necessarily informs our political judgments. The thing about abortion is, it’s not just any other issue — as serious as so many others are. Abortion is not open to debate. She goes on with some other gibberish about statements by the Pope, and implies that this Papal decree is the basis for her previous statement. Now, we could very easily point out the obvious double-think occurring here by looking at her support for waterboarding, and bashing McCain for not supporting it: I don’t see how such a man wins the Republican nomination. I’m second to none in praising him on his surge leadership. But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us. I'm sure she was much happier when McCain finally got on board (lol...). This obviously conflicts with Papal decree: Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”. Hmmm... not much grey area there. Oh, but wait - we don't torture, right Humpty? ...There's glory for you!" "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'" "But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.” As easy as this de-composition of KJL's poor logic is, I'm not going to continue it. I will instead explain the real reason that abortion and torture are different animals: it is a matter of basis. What does this mean? I will explain. When one is evaluating the rightness or wrongness of a particular action, the judgement is always filtered by the situation at hand. Certian facts surrounding a given scenario will change the application of the judgement. These facts are the "basis". It is almost impossible to find any judgement that will stand up under the scrutiny of specially-constructed circumstances (the "One Percent Doctrine"). For example, none but the most dogmatic abortion haters would say that a 14 year old girl who is a victim of incest - and as a result has contracted HIV - should not at least consider all her options, including abortion. Similarly, torture supporters continue to point towards the "ticking time bomb" scenario, where torture of one could save thousands from a disaster. These 2 scenarios are completely different, because of basis. In the abortion decision, there are several factors that exist: 1. The girl is a minor (14) 2. She is a victim of incest 3. She has contracted HIV The most important part of this analysis is that these things are known fact. They can be scientifically and unequivocally verified. We have birth certificates, blood tests, DNA verification, and all manner of other scientific tools available to determine the veracity of each factor. We do not have to "think", "assume", or do any type of "intelligence work" - all of which are debatable and subject to error (both of fact, and of interpretation). In the "ticking time bomb" scenario, all of the "evidence" is circumstantial. We cannot know for sure that there even is a ticking bomb. We also do not know that the proposed torturee knows anything that can guarantee that we stop the bomb before it goes off. In the torture debate, the basis for the pro-torture argument is assumption. In the abortion debate, the basis for the pro-choice argument is fact. Obviously, the factual basis in the abortion case does not force one to support abortion. One may look at the facts of the case, and still honestly believe that abortion is wrong. That is OK. The point, however, is that the assumptive basis for the pro-torture decision makes that decision erroneous. The torture debate already hinges on the bleeding edge of morality - as does the abortion debate. In order to push the decision over that edge, one must be operating from a factual basis... not an assumptive one. Torture supporters cannot ever operate from that factual basis, because the actual facts are unknowable in advance - no amount of "intelligence" can create a factual basis, merely a better assumption. On the torture question, we have been debating on the wrong definitions, as well as on the wrong basis. No basis can be brought forth that is grounded in fact. As such, there is no justification for stepping over the moral line and becoming torturers. Remember that.