I am conducting this poll because I recently read and responded to a post saying how animals are as if not more important than humans and children. It sickened me. I just want to see how many people agree with her..
2007-08-12 08:46:53 · 63 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
The child. I would not have to think twice about that one, even though I love animals, but would NEVER put an animal before a human.
Someone who says that losing an animal is WORSE than losing a child (someone I know actually said that to me!) DOES NOT have kids.
2007-08-12 08:49:53 · answer #1 · answered by Roxie 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I am sorry, I love animals and I love my dog. But in this scenario you describe, whether it be my own child and dog or total strangers, I would most definitely save the child.
Animals are important and I know of people who see their animals as their child(ren), but a human being will always come first in an instance of danger and I would have to choose between one or the other.
If someone would choose to save an animal over a child, something is seriously wrong there and that person may even need some serious therapy. Thats just scary that someone would let a child die to save an animal.
2007-08-12 08:55:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The child first, but I would grieve over losing the puppy.
Perhaps the child could hold the puppy, and I could save both! Or, take a bag, put the puppy in the bag, and save them both. Where there's a will, there's a way.
2007-08-12 09:00:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't see how anyone would choose a puppy over a child. That child might grow up to and find a cure for Cancer or some other great accomplishment. No animal will do that, besides that no animal was created in God's image.
2007-08-12 09:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by Lionsdenfaith 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The child. A child dying is MUCH, MUCH more serious than a puppy. In the case that an eyewitness sees you save the puppy instead, the family of the human that died sues you and you go through hell over the next year or so. I'd save the child.
2007-08-12 08:49:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Child
2007-08-12 08:49:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The child of course...I also read that post, but I didnt answer, it must have been some ill-minded person, suffering zoophilia and with lack of elemental priorities...otherwise, it was just a childish question then...
Besides...dogs can swim, it's in their instincts to know how...if I can save it after the poor kid it's already in ground then I will, but I wont die for a puppy, I'm not superman (girl in this case :)
2007-08-13 06:09:45 · answer #7 · answered by Abbey Road 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would save the child first and if I still got time would return for the puppy
2007-08-12 08:54:10 · answer #8 · answered by plaprs 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would save the child not because I don't love the puppy but because I'm a Mom, it would be instinctive. You can bet I would be diving back into the water to help the puppy soon after.
2007-08-12 09:07:41 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Whoever posted that was deranged. Even the most primitive people living in caves eons ago recognized that a human life is more valuable than any animal. We hopefully still have that much common sense. If a predator like a wolf or tiger attacks the village we kill it, we don't offer it our children. If we're forced to choose betweens saving our pets or people, we choose people.
2007-08-12 08:55:10 · answer #10 · answered by Proto 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋