The United Nations, Abortion, Robots and Torture

            Right now the UN is trying to determine, get this, if the Catholic Church’s pro-life position is “torture.”   Frankly, the so-called logic to come to this notion is so tortured (forgive the pun) it’s too hard to recreate in a short blog post.  More stunning is that the UN is actually giving this serious consideration.

            Let’s just think out loud for a minute.  Waterboarding (think Al Qaida) (dunking someone’s head under water repeatedly to give the sensation of drowning in order to cause a fear of death) –  torture.  Bamboo shoots shoved under the fingernails (Japanese during World War II) – torture.  Nazi medical experimentation on Jews (I refuse to describe it) – torture.  The Catholic Church having a religious understanding that a fetus is a human life which should not be aborted – torture.  Huh?

            No, I don’t understand where the UN is going with this.  What I do understand is the UN operates from a Eurocentric secular dogma that believes abortion on demand is a primary moral good.  Moreover, what I understand is the UN is utterly hypocritical in this belief.  How do I come to that conclusion?  Read on.

            Right now, the UN is debating about the potential of warrior robots taking the battlefield.  Why?  Here’s the quote:

            “All too often international law only responds to atrocities and suffering once it has happened,” said Michael Moeller, acting head of the U.N.’s European headquarters in Geneva. “You have the opportunity to take preemptive action and ensure that the ultimate decision to end life remains firmly under human control.”

So when warrior robots kill people, that’s bad because the decision to end life should remain under human control.  Why?  What difference does it make who decides to kill?  Isn’t the person killed just as dead, no matter who pulls the trigger, or who wields the knife?  There is something peculiar about a deliberative body that claims, on the one hand, to have some sort of concern about life ending decisions, yet on the other hand accuses an organization that has concerns about life ending decisions being guilty of torture.

            Hmmm, are we onto something here?  The Catholic Church is against abortions – the killing of humans by surgical instrument wielding humans – and this position is labeled torture.  The UN is against the killing of humans by robots – so shouldn’t this mean the UN itself is guilty of torture because of its position against the killing of human beings? 

            I know I’m missing something here.  Oh yeah, the Catholic Church’s position might make someone feel guilty about having an abortion, so I guess that’s the “torture.”  Robots don’t feel guilty, so the UN’s position isn’t really impinging on anyone’s feelings.  We can’t have people ever feeling guilty about killing another human being.  Oh, yeah, I forgot, according to the Eurocentric secular reality children in utero really aren’t human beings, they’re something else.  But, if that’s true, then the Catholic Church can’t be making anyone feel guilty because those who have and perform abortions aren’t doing anything wrong.  Why would they feel any guilt about engaging in a moral good?  I don’t know.  I guess the UN people are just way too smart and sophisticated for this good ole boy from small town USA to understand.

            The UN is right to be concerned about allowing robots on battlefields because they will act based purely on cost/benefit considerations.  Is it worth using the ammunition to kill this person? Yes, fire.  No, don’t fire.  Is it worth the time it will take to kill this person?  Yes, fire.  No, don’t fire.  Will killing this person benefit the party for whom I am acting?  Yes, fire.  No, don’t fire.  Worse, one can imagine robots simply indiscriminately killing because there is no mechanism for robots to make the kind of decisions human beings make in the moment, like recognizing friend versus foe.

            Yet, ironically, isn’t abortion often simply a cost/benefit consideration?  Will this baby cost me too much money? Yes, abort.  No, keep.  Will it take me too much time to raise this baby?  Yes, abort.  No, keep.  Will I lose out on life “benefits” if I keep this child?  Yes, abort.  No, keep.  Isn't abortion the indiscriminate killing of human babies? Is there any significant moral difference between the decisions robots might make and those we already permit when it comes to abortion?  Somehow the UN thinks so but I'm having real problems seeing it.

            At this point, it is torture thinking about how hypocritical and inconsistent the UN is.  I think I’ll lodge a complaint with the UN!  Oh wait, then they’ll accuse me of torture for taking the position it is torture to claim that the Catholic Church’s position on abortion is torture while failing to acknowledge that a similar position on robot killing isn’t torture.  Got it?  Or did I just torture you?