"A victim is factually a victim, measurably a victim, and the observation of a victim being accurately measured as suffering from injury is no confession on my part of bias, so where does your viewpoint find it's way into your head, concerning what I think, or what I don't think at any given moment?"
It was not the factual description of the victim as such that led me to the conclusion that your bias was in favor of intervening on behalf of the victim [as opposed to your bias being in favor of not intervening on behalf of the victim]. In your words, "If there is a principle at work, a routine, a way of behaving, so as to avoid abandoning the victim..." Importantly, in my view, the phraseology "so as to avoid abandoning the victim" marked a presupposition on your part in which you didn't bother to induce us; a clear bias in favor of the victim [as opposed to the would-be victim-abandoner] and especially, at this point, without regard to specific circumstances. You remedied this particular ambiguity somewhat in your follow-up by providing a specific example. But frankly, beyond this, there is more and compounding ambiguity that, for me, makes this dialogue entirely unproductive.
Your suggested principle of expedience, for example, can be equally applicable to the other side of the coin. Rightly seeing that life is good, as your air-tight inductive argument established, and valuing his or her own above that of even their child, a mother or father may invoke expediency as the principle which justifies abandonment of the victim -- precisely the result you were seeking a principle to "avoid."
The same can be said of your father's principle of defense of life. If it is merely defense of life, how does he choose which to defend? And by taking another's, is he not violating this principle? All of it begs clarification, and the way that this conversation is -- or more accurately, is not -- developing, perhaps it would be more useful if you would write a more thorough treatise and post it somewhere, that I may consider it all at once.
Too many gaps to bridge in this format. But I gather you are well-considered on the matter and would be interested in your full perspective.