Frank Evans wrote a letter to the editor in The Japan Times to show the inconsistency principle of liberals on the issue of torture and abortion. Frankly, Mr. Evans’ proof reveals the problem of political labels, and I will reveal this problem by directly addressing and criticizing Mr. Evans’ points.

First Point: “Isn't it interesting how selective liberals are in their condemnation of pain and cruelty?” This is the perfect example of defining a particular concept in such a way that it will facilitate the writer’s main point. We are to think that the core principle of “liberals” is the “condemnation of pain and cruelty”. Unfortunately, a lot of liberal advocates will dispute this claim, and it seems that Mr. Evans got this idea from a faulty inference.

Second Point: “Their compassion for the "victims" of the Bush-Cheney interrogation practices — only three people were waterboarded — is interesting in light of their absolute silence on abortion.” The technical difficulties for this point is the same as the first. If I may clarify a position, although I do not represent the “liberals”, it is not out of compassion that liberals criticize the waterboarding of three individuals. The majority liberal position, I think, is grounded on the principle of human rights violation, and many liberal critics have even pointed out that waterboarding is a violation of U.S. and international law, which the U.S. has signed. Purporting that liberals act out of compassion is quite misleading.

Third Point: “The interrogation techniques used by the military, at most, frightened the subjects but did little if any real physical harm.” I am glad that Mr. Evans did not reveal his position on the usage of “interrogation techniques”, but in any case not causing any physical harm does not justify the usage of such techniques. Please note that I am predicating waterboarding and other forms of torture to the concept of “interrogation techniques”.

Fourth Point: “Fetuses may be guilty of being unwanted, but do they deserve such horrific and, many experts now believe, painful deaths?” I will not deny this point at face value as I do not have any justification to refute it (In fact, I am more inclined to believe on this point). However, Mr. Evans positions this sentence such that the death of a fetus is equivalent to torture. Although the two issues are horrifying, they are nevertheless two distinct issues and comparing them side-by-side is at best appealing to emotion, a fallacy.

Fifth Point: “The liberal ignores such issues and instead focuses on the plight of death row murderers, terrorists, Guantanamo detainees and every noninsect animal form known to man. Talk about having screwed up priorities.” This statement is assuming that liberals ignore the issue of abortion and “such issues” and instead take all of their political might to fight for the rights of terrorist. However, this is empirically false, precisely because some liberals have been fighting on the issue of “Pro Choice” for many years. Liberals have been active in other areas, contrary to what Mr. Evans supposedly accuses them of.

But the real problem from Mr. Evans’ letter to the editor is his faulty demarcation of political entities. Liberal and conservative are vague terms that one cannot justifiably set a particular principle in each of them without alienating some members of the same political group. At best, these labels are marketing tools and quite meaningless in this day of age.