Who would you let die?

Question

This is somewhat a second part to the question I just asked.

If you were in a random situation where your own life and those of all people you know was not at stake, but you had to choose which of the following people to let die, who would you choose, and why?

1) A young uneducated single mother of two, addicted to meth.
2) A young man with a very high risk of incurable cancer
3) A middle aged man who has repeatedly cheated on his wife
4) A young child who had once accidentally burned his own house down, killing his sister
5) A baby born with HIV

Please do not answer my question unless you are prepared to actually answer the question. I am asking no one to play god, simply asking which life appears to be worth less than all the other's.

Answer 1

I would let the meth-mommy die, as she seems to be the only one making a decision that drastically affects the welfare of her dependents. Besides, addiction is a weakness rehab can't fix.

Answer 2

You said let die, so I assume you mean not save in a fire or something? Like if i could run in and save only 4 people?

1-I would not want to let anyone die. But, a mother is mainly what a child has, even if she is addicted to meth, she can recover, but the loss of a mother is incurable.
2-you said a high risk of incurable cancer, not that he had it, so he had a whole life to live possibly, or does he have cancer?
3-a man that has no respect for god, his wife, or obviously himself. This type of person normally is also a liar in other areas of his life, at work with family etc.
4-the young child, who can be helped with what he has done as a child and may lead a very productive life.
5- a baby, this child may live a very long time, and touch many lives in his or her time.

So, my answer is the ones I would help first are the child and baby as they can't help themselves. Next would be the mother then the young man with cancer then the adult man.
Scary question.
But as a human, I don;t think you get a chance to judge before you help, nor should you.
I hope I am never put in a position like that. I would want to save them all.

Answer 3

if by choosing to allow one to die i am guaranteed that the others will live a fairly good life.

i would say the middle aged man who has cheated on his wife.

the 2 kids need their mother and Meth addiction can be cured.

high risk of incurable cancer does not mean that he already has it, and it does not mean that it will kill him. besides he has done nothing wrong.

a child should always be given a chance and besides it was an accident.

and a baby born with HIV has committed no crime nor wrong, and may quite possibly live a very long and natural life. HIV does not always mean AIDS.

there are only 2 people here that are doing wrong the meth addict and the cheating husband. the meth addict can be rehabilitated.and her kids still need her. the cheating husband has no respect for his wife, himself, or the women that he is cheating with.

Answer 4

The mother who is addicted to meth could always find help, and I think children always need their mother. The man with high risk cancer always has that one possibility of living more years then told and appreciating everything around him. And the young child well he is just a child and thought that tragedy might haunt him for ever he might make the right chooses in life. The baby also has a possibility of living at least a while and he deserves that chance.Therefore, I would have to choose the the middle age man who cheated on his wife. He obviously has no consideration for any one but himself.

Answer 5

If we're all locked in a room, I'd say the meth mother. She's the one most likely to go crazy and kill everyone else and in a closed environment, that's dangerous. Not in a closed environment, the desicion gets harder. I'd probably still say the meth mother. The man with the high risk of cancer - doesn't say if he does have it, just a high risk of having it. Wouldn't do to just kill him off if he doesn't have it, and if he does, he'll die anyway. The middle aged man is a swine, but not in a position to harm anyone else. The little child made a mistake and I see nothing there that says he's a pyromaniac and the baby doesn't deserve to die.

Answer 6

why couldn't you have added a child molester in the mix? in that case it would be a VERY easy choice. as to the current 5 on the board, i would opt not to play god, i've never been good at it. the person up there that is doing the LEAST GOOD for others, thought, to me is #1. Even #3, his wife is choosing to stay with him. #4 made a mistake and I've made plenty. #2 could be someone's young husband, and i'd want him every single day he had left if I were the wife. #5 could be the answer to someone's prayers for a baby--plenty of kids who show HIV at birth end up not keeping it after all the mother's junk is out of their system. That leaves me with #1, who is not only harming herself and on a hell-bent path toward her own soon death, she is also harming her children by establishing a norm that is NOT norm, and by neglecting their needs for hers. Still, I would do just about anything not to make a choice against her. HOWEVER i would not opt to sacrifice myself for her, because my own two babies and husband need me too. HARD question!

Answer 7

Although this is a really awful depressing question, I have to answer truthfully. I would choose to let the uneducated single mother of two die. Not only is she ruining her own life she is endangering the lives of her children, and if she were to keep up with that behavior she would eventually lose them to the state anyhow. So she should definitely die. Her kids in all honestly have a better chance of making it without her around.

Answer 8

I would let them all die however they were meant to die. Do you mean that, for example, one of these people must be shot and killed prematurely? In that case, in the case that I HAVE to choose a person to die, I would choose the baby, as that condition will lead to death before long anyway. None of their lives are worth any less, but this seems the most humane.

Answer 9

I would sacrifice myself without hesitation to save every other person. I would refuse to choose.

EDIT: All of their lives are valuable. I was once that young uneducated mother who overcame a drug addiction and have been clean for over 20 years. Would YOU kill me, knowing that I have successfully raised 3 sons on my own?

One of my friends died at age 35 of bone cancer. I would not choose to sacrifice him.

The cheater and his wife can work through their differences, and quite possibly would have a family. Would you ask me to take a father from his child?

I know of a boy who burned down his house. No one was hurt, but what should that matter? It was an accident.

The baby born with HIV has even more right to live than anyone, because it is a baby. Also, because there may be a cure for this child before disease would take it.

So once again I stand by my original statement that I would offer up myself for sacrifice because I would not be able to take the life of another.

Answer 10

It's God work....only he has the right to decide.....he has a plan for all! .....and by the way....SPOOKY....I applaude you for being honest and posting your life history....why would anyone post a question like this? Every life is precious.....we all have a purpose on this earth.....no one life is more precious than the other! How dare you!

Answer 11

Im not God and neither are you. Who are we to choose who lives or die. That power belong to God alone. All lifes are precious in his sight. I would give mine up instead of choosing someone else.
By the way God loves you and send his son to die for you too.