Where am I politically?

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by grant

I came in late. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

My previous comment was based solely on what ph45 said in what I quoted. Sorry if I'm more out of it than I thought.

I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Toymented

I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.

Ok, then.

Originally Posted by Toymented

It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?

I have a couple questions since the above is still escaping me to some degree.

What's this good indication?

So a life becomes sacred when a "mother elects to advance the organism"? There are problems with this even when we restrict the organisms to human beings. Are we restricting the definition of "advance" to "nurture and raise", or "let it live", because in my book "advance" allows that sometimes destruction is advancement.

And I'm not sure anybody "should" feel motivated to nurture unwanted life. But I think life is generally more interesting than death (which I think might underlie the arguments of many pro-anti-abortionists). The problem I have with your question is that you can't really construct and deal with "shoulds."

I'm really confused now, which is why I stay out of these threads. It's good to be confused from time to time, but this is one of those questions that's out of my philosophical depth and interest.

(pardon any brain-slips, my blood sugar is in the negative numbers post-gym)

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by grant

What's this good indication?

I meant it as a sign or evidence (of suitability, in this case).

Originally Posted by grant

So a life becomes sacred when a "mother elects to advance the organism"? There are problems with this even when we restrict the organisms to human beings. Are we restricting the definition of "advance" to "nurture and raise", or "let it live", because in my book "advance" allows that sometimes destruction is advancement.

What “problems” do you see?

I used “advance” to mean “nurture and raise” as I was focused on the individual organism. Hopefully, there is more interest from mom than a “let it live” attitude, although, this may be sufficient if arrangements have been made for post-birth nurture (for example, through adoption).

Originally Posted by grant

And I'm not sure anybody "should" feel motivated to nurture unwanted life. But I think life is generally more interesting than death (which I think might underlie the arguments of many pro-anti-abortionists). The problem I have with your question is that you can't really construct and deal with "shoulds."

I agree that life is more interesting than death. And it is best when well managed, beginning to end. Management requires choice. No “shoulds” there.