A question was posed a few moments ago..."Who would you save?" Here's the link.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnLgRN091o2S.6zdPhKDUOfd7BR.?qid=20070423052029AAQknCH
The questioner wanted to know who you would save from a burning car-your spouse? Or your child?
I was shocked by the number of people who said they would save their spouse.
How could you not even attempt to save your child? Please explain this to me, because I really don't understand the thinking behind this.
2007-04-23 01:41:30 · 11 answers · asked by iamnoone 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I understand that it's a hypothetical question, but it reveals a lot about people's mindset. Enlighten me please.
2007-04-23 01:42:34 · update #1
Isn't it odd that the people who chose their spouse have yet to answer this question?
2007-04-23 01:53:07 · update #2
I don't know who's rating these answers. I normally pass out the thumbs up, but I'm not touching this one. I'm just curious as to how you would rationalize your answer.
2007-04-23 01:55:09 · update #3
I saw a similar question a few days ago.
The responses were similar. In general, females would save their child, and males would save their spouse.
Don't be shocked, I think it's just a case of maternal instinct overwhelming the desire to protect a partner. It's not a matter of males consciously caring less about their offspring.
2007-04-23 01:59:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anthony Stark 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Good point. I noticed that too. I don't think that they feel less for children, it's just that some may already be married and cannot bear the thought of losing their mate. Of course that does not mean that they have less love for their children. They are not saying that they would not save their child, I would try to save both. Anyway, most parents inside that car would pass their child out first.
2007-04-23 08:49:55 · answer #2 · answered by A-chan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why does anyone need to rationalize their answer? Are you saying that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong? Just because someone chooses their spouse over their child in this situation does not mean that they think children are expendable. Why should a child be more important than a spouse? You are trying to guilt trip people into making the same choice you would make. Not everyone will agree with you, deal with it.
2007-04-23 10:30:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's a hard question but if you have one second to make a decision then you don't piss about with agonising over the morality of the situation. It's a horrible choice to make but in the end you have to make it or they both die.
I would save my wife because I love her and never want to be without her. Don't think for a moment the death of the child wouldn't tear me apart but when you have only one choice you have to live with its outcome.
And heaven help me, that would be my choice.
2007-04-23 08:56:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question was posed in such a way as to imply you had to save one or the other. In such a situation I would save my wife. Partly because if her injuries were not severe, she could conceivably help me go back and save the child if there was time. The question implies that I don't have the time, but I would still save my wife because I have a stronger more established emotional connection to her. If my child and myself were left without the child's mother, we would have a more difficult time than if my wife and I were left without our child. My wife and I could always have another child.
2007-04-23 08:52:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I didn't answer that question for this very reason. People were making a choice given certain options it doesn't mean children are expendable. You are trying to make something out of nothing that was really there.
2007-04-23 08:48:16 · answer #6 · answered by Mariah 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
God thinks they are, if according to some people that places like africa are used to teach the rest of the world compassion. Millions of people die without any help, just to teach jimmy joe johnson that he should tithe 10% of his salary.
In reference to the save the child/wife scenario. I can sympathize with both answers, and since it is an improbable situation what does it matter? It would suck to have to make the choice, I think most people would agree, since most people said they would try to save both without really answering the question.
2007-04-23 08:45:24 · answer #7 · answered by PoseidenNeptuneReturns 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
First grab the child who is helpless. The mother could help herself from the incident to be save.
jtm
2007-04-23 08:49:55 · answer #8 · answered by Jesus M 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I know. I think I'd rather live to see them dying both while I was trying to save them BOTH then live knowing I didn't save one over the other.
2007-04-23 08:52:25 · answer #9 · answered by Regina 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would say my child but much depends on trhe situation and age of the child.
2007-04-23 08:45:59 · answer #10 · answered by Mim 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋