This is, IMHO, a very weak argument.

"Applying your principles to these hypothetical situations might lead to a situation you, western consequentialist, would feel is abhorrent."

Yeah, we all know our feelings and intutions about what is right and wrong, and our reasonings, may not always match. Who hasn't felt guilt, or at least unease, about hurting someone you love, even though you knew it was for the best?

This is basically saying:

"Your best effort to reason a moral code from first principles doesn't match modern western moral intuitions about justice"

That's no challenge for consequentalism. It might be a challenging decision for someone trying to implement a justice system, but all justice systems are full of weird compromises and grey areas.