Ed, I believe you just cancelled out your own position by unknowingly calling it a "SUBJECTIVE individual value judgement". While you initially claimed to be making an objective judgment about the purpose of life (implying an irrefutable judgment), your own later elaboration explained that it could be nothing more than a "SUBJECTIVE individual value judgement". (You apparently forgot that you are an individual.)
But still, let's look at some of your other points. Your "final analysis" about short life-spans of individuals supporting reproduction as the "purpose of life" is actually only a "single analysis". How do you know that the reverse could not be a "better analysis"? How do you know that reproduction isn't only a "process" to another grand purpose; the individual? How do you know that the species is not merely a mechanism for the INDIVIDUAL? I'm afraid we are back to seeing your preference to prioritize the collective (species) over the individual unit (person) as nothing more than a "SUBJECTIVE individual value judgement". Regarding what you don't understand, including Natural Selection: It was you who claimed that one of the main purposes of life was species improvement. While much evidence disproves your "improvement" argument, even MORE evidence disproves your argument that insuring the survival-to-birth of all fetuses supports species "improvement". I think the only kind of "species improvement" ever recognized by evolutionists was the kind that came from Natural Selection. We have advanced beyond the stage of Natural Selection into one more aptly called "artificial selection". NS was a terrible stage of our development. The only mechanism of NS was DEATH (only the strongest survived long enough to reproduce, and the weaker were "weeded out"). Therefore it is certain that artificially insuring the survival of all fetuses would NOT serve to "improve the species". ------------------------ As I said, the issue of abortion is complicated and positions cannot be expressed in one-liners, short emails, or even longer ones. I just didn't (and don't) have the time to work up a complete explanation and cover all issues in a simple response. At least, though there is a basis for discussion and, as opposed to Rand and her Randroids, I'm willing to discuss and alter my opinions. So, eating and defecating are not purposes but processes. I do not deny individual instincts. I claim that individual human instincts and conscious decisions to action clearly exist and motivate individuals. My claim is that the only OBJECTIVE purpose that I can discover for "life" is reproduction and improvement of the species. This is demonstrated by looking OBJECTIVELY at the actions of all living things and trying to deduce a purpose behind them. Clearly, actions of individuals may have, and do demonstrate, other purposes but these are not OBJECTIVE purposes but SUBJECTIVE. In other words, the purpose is determined by individual value judgements. In the final analysis, the individual instinct to survive is inevitably a short term purpose. No one survives forever. That is an objective fact that cannot be denied. Therefore, the "meaning of life" or it's "purpose" cannot be the individual instinct to survive as that is OBJECTIVELY impossible. I don't understand your second paragraph. You say, "the only real way to said "improvement" basically went out with Natural Selection". I do not eliminate natural selection. Indeed, I do not say that the state should prevent abortions. I just say that the MORAL choice is to protect one's child. This is a general statement and subject to exceptions based on situations. Indeed, one could argue that it is natural to select for survival those progeny whose parents ARE willing to make greater sacrifices for their survival. I completely disagree that "survival-to-parturition of all pregnancies generally serves to WEAKEN the species". Natural selection and evolution work best when there are a LOT of choices to be made. It is a process of chance, NOT one of determinism. Your statement to the contrary is "neither logical nor BIOlogical." You clearly do not understand what natural selection, the basis of evolution, is. Ed$
