PLEASE EXPLAIN

Contradictions in politics and culture I just don’t get… 

Religious v. Atheist Worldview
Religious people believe in an afterlife.  Atheists do not.  The people arguing to reinsert Terri Shiavo’s feeding tube base their rhetoric on religion and their perception of the will of God.  Religion aids people’s fear of the afterlife with teachings of a benevolent God waiting to meet you there.  However, religious people believe it is better for Terri Shiavo to sit in a hospice hanging somewhere between life and death rather than face the scary consequence of dying.  Atheisitic people, who believe all we comprise is a biological being, argue Terri’s biological processes should be halted because she’s better off dead. 

Application of Catholic Teaching
Catholics originally opposed anesthesia in childbirth because it was a violation of God’s punishment through Eve’s curse.  Catholic teachings today say using contraception is unnatural and unnatural barriers to life’s development are sinful.  John Stuart Mill once joked that wearing a condom for sex was no different than blocking the rain with an umbrella.  This week the Vatican’s statement on Terri Shiavo called for her to live out her “natural” life.  This meant reinserting her feeding tube.  According to Catholic doctrine, condoms are unnatural but artificial feeding methods are part of a God ordained natural life. 

Role of the Judiciary
The fight in Congress over nominees for federal benches can be summarized easily.  Conservatives tend to favor judges with a strict interpretation of the constitution and firm limits of the law (only what the Constitution or law in question say exactly, no more).  Liberals tend to favor judges that recognize the Constitution as a living document, evolving in application over time, and leeway to modify law as circumstances dictate.  The Florida state statutes are very clear on who speaks for an incapacitated adult.  The order goes; spouse, adult children, adult siblings, biological parents.  It also defines Persistent Vegitative State and appoints independent doctors to diagnose it.  However, Conservatives with the above-referenced judicial philosophy support judicial modification of the Florida law allowing Terri Shiavo’s parents to speak for her, not her spouse.  They also selectively use a modified interpretation of the 10th amendment, written to separate state and federal laws, to justify their special intervention session of Congress.  Conservatives therefore endorse a strict interpretation of the law and minimalist interpretation of the Constitution unless another result can benefit them politically.  Their adjudication philosophy then becomes, make up rules as you go along until you achieve the outcome you want. 

Medical Research
Last week Republican leaders in both the House and Senate filed separate amicus curiae briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court to save Terri Shiavo’s life.  In both briefs the authors cite undiscovered medical treatments that could rehabilitate Terri claiming they may be found in the coming years.  For that reason, they said Terri’s feeding tube should be reinserted.  However, the same senators and representatives that signed onto these briefs are the ones sponsoring bills to end the referenced medical research.  With few exceptions based on changes in leadership due to November’s elections, the people that wrote the bills opposed to said medical research in the last session of Congress now cite the same research as necessary to help a dying woman.   

Government Healthcare
Since losing the election, Senator Kerry has made a pet project out of legislation that would guarantee health insurance to all children who are U.S. citizens.  In one version of the bill the age limit is 7, in another the age limit is 10.  This bill is designed to fund medical care for the millions of children whose parents don’t have health insurance.  Pro-life political organizations claim unborn children should have legal protections and support legislation that protects them in utero.  However, those same groups are the ones lobbying to defeat Kerry’s new legislation.  Unborn children deserve full legal protection while born children can fend for themselves.  The pro-life groups oppose government healthcare based on a doctrine of personal responsibility.  According to these groups, children under the age of 7 are personally responsible for their socio-economic level and therefore undeserving of government handouts.  However, expected mothers are absolutely not personally responsible and reproductive healthcare decisions need to be made for them. 

Role of Government in the Family
Pro-life and “pro-family” groups base policy preferences on the idea that the family unit is the building block of society and should be protected, autonomous, and exempt from government intrusion.  They oppose government subsidized daycare, healthcare, family leave, and, to a limited degree, public education because of the imposition on the family each program represents.  However, in the case of a family conflict over medical care for an incapacitated member, these same groups believe in using every mechanism of government intervention imaginable to aid one side of the conflict.  Unaware of the dangerous precedent such intervention sets, “pro-family” activists ignore the autonomy of the family unit in favor of direct poli-legal coercion.   

Comments

[Stephen]

Bravo! Bravo! Exactly what I've been thinking, only articulated far better, and some things I hadn't even thought of.

I did notice one typo (I think).

In your sentence here:
However, those same groups are the ones lobbying to defend Kerry’s new legislation.

I assume you mean this:
However, those same groups are the ones lobbying to defeat Kerry’s new legislation.

But still, well done Gabe!

[Gabriel]

re: Thanks dude. Typo corrected!