English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hypothetically, you have married and have two sons.Your husand was sent to Iraq, and died serving his country. Months later, your house is cought on fire with you and your sons trapped in. Firemen are able to rescue you and your children. Your children have no severe injuries, but you have been burned and injured fataly. You are covered in blankets laying on a stretcher.

Knowing you only have minutes to live, two of your girlfriends, (who heard quickly of your trauma) approach you. You are relieved to see them knowing your sons will need someone to watch them. The first lady had an abortion at the age of 19, because the child would have hindered her colledge career. She is now weatlhy, married, and a mother of two. Her children spend their day in daycare. The second women is also married and a mother of two. She to was pregnant at 19, but chose her children over her career. Her husband has a decent job and she is a stay-at-home mother.

Who would you want to raise your sons?

2006-07-06 05:58:26 · 20 answers · asked by man_id_unknown 4 in Social Science Gender Studies

Sorry, "college" should not have a "d"!!

2006-07-06 06:33:44 · update #1

20 answers

Stay at home mom ... experience rules and motherhood is a serious job!!!

Plus, I'd leave a great inheritance to the kids in a trust fund, so I don't care that the other woman has a good job ... actually, her job would probably cause her to ignore the kids or at least cause her hardship in choosing again between life and career again (and we all saw where that last choice did ::: dumb-de-dumb-da death) ... I wouldn't want to cause my children (imaginary) or my friends hardships!!!

So, the existing mommy would be blessed and get more cute kids to raise with security of my inheritance ... She'd be sooo lucky!!!

And, my other friend could keep working to take over the world and enjoy her life ... lucky her ... alls happy and ends well ... or starts well.

Hope they both give me a good funeral and visit my grave.

2006-07-06 06:06:39 · answer #1 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 1 3

That is a well detailed senario so props to you! Hmmm, it really depends on the person, but personally I would pick the stay at home mom to raise the kids. Only because she can spend all the time with the kids. If I were one of the two kids, I would like personal time with a Mom figure that is home all the time instead of going to a Day Care during the say. The trama of losing a mom at such a young age would really hurt me and I would need a mom figure to look up.

2006-07-06 06:10:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I would choose the latter, of course, but without necessarily condemning the former. Your question isn't completely fair, because you didn't post each woman's personality. Woman #1 with all her situation could be kind, supportive and approachable, while woman #2 may be crabby, always in a bad mood and unaproachable, which in that case, I would choose the former. Better in daycare with people who are trained to be proactive, rather than reactive, than at home all day with a woman who will yell at them all the time.

2006-07-06 06:12:52 · answer #3 · answered by imagineworldwide 4 · 0 1

What are you trying to write a book here??!! I would choose the women that honestly wanted the children and could provide them with a loving and stable home enviroment!! which ever one that may be! and since i dont' know these women, i can't judge on their past history....everyone has a "good" reason for doing something at the time! even though i chose to be a stay-at-home mommy and love it, i would never judge a women that chose to pursue her career so that her future children could have a life without struggle and hardship! each to their own!!!

2006-07-06 06:10:29 · answer #4 · answered by dragonfly 3 · 0 1

I cannot begin to fathom what kind of sickness would prompt you to ask such a question.

Besides which, merely for the delight of pointing out your ignorance, if my husband was in Iraq (as mine has been) the military would have required both of us to make a will and name a guardian for our children before he left. That will would still have been in effect, so there would be no issue if I "have minutes to live."

My children, incidentally, will go first to my mother in law, or if she is unable, to my father. When my sister is older and suitably prepared, I would like to amend the wills to name her as a guardian.

That's because they are people already well known to my children whose temperaments and values I trust. Do I give a crap what kind of jobs they have? No.

2006-07-07 00:38:00 · answer #5 · answered by smurfette 4 · 0 1

Neither.
We would have had a will drawn up when the first child was born and it would have included any subsequent children.This definately would have been done before my husband went to Iraq so we would have decided together and found someone we both trusted and felt comfortable with.. I would not leave a decision like this till I was on my deathbed.

2006-07-06 15:37:54 · answer #6 · answered by HolidayGurl 3 · 0 0

Have you seen Raising Helen? It's practically the same situation (apart from the abortion part.) Do you leave your kids to a wealthy woman or do you leave them to the woman who is a stay at home mother and can give them every bit of attention they deserve? The answer is: Trust the woman who you believe will remind them most of you and the woman who will teach them the same values you would have. Forget their wealth and their past.

2006-07-06 13:57:45 · answer #7 · answered by cendalls20 1 · 1 0

It depends on which one wants to take the children! It also depends which one could afford to take the children; children are expensive, and four children are VERY expensive. So I would probably go with the woman with a career, not because I trust her more, but because I think it would be less of a financial burden on her family.

2006-07-06 07:20:18 · answer #8 · answered by cay_damay 5 · 0 0

Being a stay at home mom does NOT necessarily mean you are mother of the year. Being rich does NOT mean you're going to give your kids a fabulous childhood. Tell the fireman to raise your kids. You watch way too many soap operas!

2006-07-06 06:15:56 · answer #9 · answered by nimbleminx 5 · 0 0

It depends on the person rather then if they chose to keep their child at age 19 and are wealthy or not. That makes no difference.

2006-07-06 06:02:26 · answer #10 · answered by X 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers