The Terri Schiavo Case

Thomas,

I did in fact acknowledge that endorsement of anti-abortion violence need not be based on religion, if it is based instead in fascism or incoherence. I should add that this is a forum for sense-of-life Objectivists, and your postings have made it clear that you are nothing of the sort. You have invaded our forum for the express purpose of abusing those of us who belong here. Troll, be gone.

Post 101

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:42am

Dear Adam,

Would an apology suffice to assuage your annoyance?

The reason I didn't post the intemperate, provocative language in the first place was because it was, well, intemperate and provocative. I only posted it after you continued to highlight your desire to pick a pointless fight, e.g. to engage in some early A.M. trolling. If it makes any difference, I'm sorry for letting you set the hook in my lip and reel me in. I'm usually a smarter fish.

I've reviewed my previous posts, and find no reasonable grounds for concluding that I've been, as you put it, "abusing" anybody. Of course, my judgment on that isn't the one which counts. Neither is yours.

Now, do you want this thread to get back to its putative topic, or not? I gave up flaming as entertainment long ago. No time for it.

Respectfully,
Tom Knapp

Post 102

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:23am

I've been sitting here quietly on my Michael's lap being petted gently as this discussion has been going on. I try to be quiet while my master is talking serious life and death issues. I am really taken by some of his comments online. He is truly a good and wonderful person. I'm so lucky I found him. Blessed, if there is such a thing.

(To My Michael: I'm glad your mother has recovered from her stroke. I wish her the best and your father too. I'm actually looking forward to meeting them one day. I'm glad you found your way back home.)

I saw an episode of ER a while back where a woman in her 30's had a stroke and everyone thought she was a veg, but she was very much alive and aware. It actually brought tears to my eyes and I'm not the type that cries at movies and stuff. It was a truly medical miracle and makes you think about some of the good possible in this world. Sometimes miracles do happen. My miracle is Michael.

Back on topic....apparently Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly from a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder She was bulimic, and only 41. I consider that to be far different from having lived with a terminal illness. She apparently suffered further injury from the malpractice involved both from her medical providers and that so-called husband of hers. I say "so-called" because it is quite clear that he abandoned the marriage. I think it is wrong that a man who, in light of the situation and his immense responsibilities, found a new woman and had two kids with her.

To me it sounds like the dude, got his money (something like $2.4 million), was undone by a former girlfriend (Cyndi) who revealed that he had told her that he lied in court about Terri's wishes. But now he will have his way.

If nothing else, the guy should be tried for murder. There was definitely motive and opportunity. He is an animal.... and I don't mean a kat.

Post 103

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:20am

Adam,

Rights are conditioned on more than sentience, which is "capable of perceiving through the senses." In other words, the ability to feel. That's the argument of the "animal rights" crowd.

Rights are conditioned not on perceptual, but conceptual-level functioning. That rules out animals. And fetuses.

Post 104

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:52am

Thomas,

"corollary to Rand's Razor"

LOL

That's one I hadn't heard before. Nice phrase... (not sure I know what it means, but I still like it...)

Michael

Edit - Kitten... ahem... uh... well shucks anyway...

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/23, 7:59am)

Post 105

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 8:31am

Michael,

"not sure what it means ..."

"Rand's Razor" is found in her _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, in the chapter on "The Cognitive Role of Concepts." Here it is:

"The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological 'razor': concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity -- the corollary to which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."

It's possible that I may be misusing the razor, but I'm doing my best, and here's the way I see it:

With respect to Terri Schiavo, there are two arguments going on.

One is an argument on questions of fact. Is she or is she not in a persistent vegetative state? Did she or did she not leave a verbally expressed advance directive as to how should be treated should such an eventuality arise? Etc.

Another is an argument as to the motivations of those who have taken one side or another on those questions of fact and what effect those motivations might have on their judgment.

That second argument has spilled over into related arguments on fetal stem cell research and abortion. Some have held -- incorrectly, I have argued, and possibly less from intent than from a desire to keep things simple by generalizing -- that a particular motivation underlies taking a particular side in those arguments.

It may seem like a tempest in a teapot, but I don't think it is. If noting distinctions between mindsets with respect to arguments was not an important component of Objectivist evaluation processes, I don't believe Rand would have dedicated her first extended non-fiction essay to be published in book form (so far as I know), "For the New Intellectual," to exploring those very distinctions on a meta-scale with the archetypes of Attila and The Witch Doctor. Nor do I think that she would have populated her novels with so many characters of differing motivations -- even if they ended up on the same sides of various fences -- if understanding motivations wasn't key to undertanding how one falls into philosophical error or reaches philosophical truth.

I was not seeking to expand the thread into increasingly circular arguments on secondary issues, which is why I ended up getting short with Adam. What I was attempting to do was get people to mentally note that they should be careful in ascribing particular motivations to all people taking a particular side in an argument on an issue.

Make any sense?

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Post 106

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 8:39am

Robert,

Having found myself under attack by a troll very late at night, I needed to make myself as short as possible and get to sleep. Sentience is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary one, and so it was useful for a one-sentence demonstration of the troll's incoherence. The additional criterion of conceptual consciousness is not sufficient either - in the social context, mutuality is also required. I shall get into more implications of this at Soloc4.

Post 107

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:28pm

Just when I thought this case was finally coming to its logical, proper ends, Jeb Bush has put forth an attempt to take custody of Terry Schiavo. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050324/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman

Post 108

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:39pm

I'm finding the conservative demagoguery on this issue disgusting. And scary.

Listening to Michael Savage rant about "murder" and whipping up his audience into a frenzy, and Sean Hannity hosting the contemptible likes of Randall Terry, the anti-abortion fanatic, I fear for the outcome here. They are instigating nutcases out there to take this issue to the next bloody level: perhaps taking potshots at Michael Schiavo, or mounting a goon squad to raid the hospice, etc. The aptly named Savage in particular is perilously close to inciting violence.

The shameless emotionalism, outrageous reliance on hearsay statements by non-experts, unsupported claims of criminality against Michael Schiavo, etc., are beyond the pale. He ought to launch slander suits against these S.O.B.'s. when this is over.

Post 109

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 8:53pm

When I started this thread, I had no idea the story would come to a head the way it has recently. What makes this issue difficult (for me, anyway) is that it requires a significant investment of research time to get to the facts, especially since the media paints a picture of legitimate disagreement among medical experts. I guess I'm lazy about some things :-)

I honestly don't care what happens, though. If Terri lives, and private citizens want to pay for her care, I don't see the harm in that so long as she is not suffering. If she dies, so be it - I would actually prefer to die in her situation also.....

Oh, and by the way, the Republican party is pissing on the Constitution with just about everything they do on this...that is cause for alarm!!

(Edited by Pete on 3/23, 10:13pm)

Post 110

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:37pm

Thomas,

Thanks for the explanation. I really like the expression "Rand's Razor." Sort of like Occum's Razor with an Objectivist twist.

"...concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity..."

The mind reels with the possibilities for wordplays here! (What or who, for example, in certain quarters has managed to become multiplied beyond necessity? Ms. Rand can be quite a muse at times...)

Getting back to topic, I agree that in a very complex issue like the present, two rational "pro-life" people can end at the opposite ends of disagreement without one necessarily being a scumbag evader or whatnot. That, by the way, is one of the reasons law exists. Ayn Rand knew that - and she stated it openly (Galt's Gulch even had a judge for that very reason, although in her fiction he did not have much to do).

I am especially divided on this issue as I am not convinced that our justice system served proper justice (however I did not study it in proper depth either). I am especially outraged by the official use of prolonged starvation and dehydration as a form of mercy killing. But I am equally outraged by this blatant attempt by the leaders of the legislative and executive branches to set a precedent against the judiciary. God only know what abuses of executive power (read Bush for the present) will come from that.

I see that you and Professor Adam have issues. Well, I like and agree with many things in what I have read by both of you, so far be it for me to get in the middle of a family dispute. (You both, like a married couple, could end up turning on me...) //;-)

Michael

Post 111

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:55pm

Robert, did you hear the man in the monk's habit who likened Terri's mother to the mother of Christ? Lovely.

Barbara

Post 112

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:17am

Thanks for that news item Jennifer.

It seems old Jeb wants to look after Terri at the cost of the tax-payer. It was bound to come up sooner or later.

It just is quite disgusting how all these busy-bodies activists who do not have to live with Terri's condition from day to day can't wait to interfere in the lives of others. I don't think these people have anything else meaningful to do with their time.

Post 113

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:09am

Michael,

You wrote:

"I see that you and Professor Adam have issues."

Adam may have issues with me. I generally don't have issues with anyone -- if I can learn from them I do; if I can't learn from them, I at least try to be cordial with them; if I can't be cordial with them, I ignore them if I can do so without knowingly allowing others to be persuaded of something I believe to be utterly incorrect.

Obviously, I got off on the wrong foot with Adam. Maybe I'll get back on the right foot, maybe I won't. Either way, whichever foot I'm on, my toes will continue to tap ;-)

Tom Knapp

Post 114

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 5:18am

I just learned that Michael Schiavo, who is being portrayed as a monster, looked after Terri for the first seven years, visited her every single day, flew her to Chicago to see a brain specialist, and even became a nurse in order to look after her --all of this in the hope that that she might recover. When, after seven years, he could no longer hope, it was then that he admitted that she never wanted to be on life support.

Barbara

Post 115

Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:36am