Would you be willing to die to save your child?

meglome

Lavezzi wrote: »

My girlfriend was shocked to hear that I would not be willing to die to save our child. I responded by saying that I was shocked that she was willing to.

I'd kill you to save him.

Biggins

meglome wrote: »

I'd kill you to save him.

So say we all! :pac:

Stiffler2

Biggins wrote: »

Good - you can read my signature then!

Sorry Biggins. I re-read your edited post but still can't make sense of it.
( not being bad here, genuinely can't understand it )
I can't see your signature either !

I think it's clearly evident the OP is trolling and created the account specifically for this purpose.

On another side, science theorizes that the main function of life is to procreate, and to ensure your genes persevere through generations. By letting your child die, you're going against nature.

I would prefer to be emotional than logical when it comes to my child's life (and I have yet to have any, I imagine this feeling will become more intense if one day I do become a mother).

In conclusion, OP = TROLL

dsmythy

I noticed someone write they would die for all family members. What about your 90 year old granny? Or is that where logic kicks in suddenly?

If you could guarantee 100% you could save your child from an overturned and about to explode bus but have more of a 80% chance of doing the same if you grabbed another 2 other children would you be a horrible person for letting the two kids die and guaranteeing your own?

If you saving your child's life causes the deaths of two others (child or adult) is it justified?

Would you sacrifice your brother's life for your child?

Would you be annoyed if your sister, who is also a mother, intentionally saved herself instead of your child for her own children's sake?

How much is your child's life worth? One life? Ten? A million?

Also a lot of people seem to point to the avoidance of the pain of losing a child as the reason for saving the child and dying themselves. Seems a slightly differing motive to dying for them because you love them.

I'm going to be a first time dad sometime at the turn of the new year and despite never even as much as having a chance to see my child in the flesh yet, I already have that feeling deep inside that the child will live no matter what. At the expense of myself and others if need be. Just playing devil's advocate in the above questions.

BunShopVoyeur

Lavezzi wrote: »

My girlfriend was shocked to hear that I would not be willing to die to save our child. I responded by saying that I was shocked that she was willing to.

So I was wondering, how many of you would be willing to die to save your child? Seriously? See the poll above.

I think most people say that they would. It has become a cliche almost to say, "I wouldn't hesitate to give up my life to save my children. They are everything to me. They are my reason for living. I would die to save them."

Now, I don't understand the logic behind this. Why is valuing someone else's life ABOVE yours considered a good thing or an act of love? Why should I love someone else more than myself? Why not love someone else equally as much as myself? Why do people think that true love means being willing to die for another? Who came up with this strange idea? Is it natural or programmed?

Remember, your child is technically another person. He/she is not you. If you die, your consciousness and awareness does not continue in your child. He is another separate sentient being, separate from you. So why do people treat their child's life as if it were equal to or of higher value than their own, since the child is a separate consciousness?

Also, shouldn't your child be the one willing to give up his/her life for you? I mean, YOU gave him/her life. He/she did NOT give you life. Therefore, your child OWES YOU his/her life. You do NOT owe your child your life, only your support. So doesn't society have it BACKWARDS?

So what if I do not value my child's life above mine? Does that mean that there's something wrong with me? Am I obligated to change my values and beliefs, just because society says so? How can I believe something I don't, simply because society or other people say so?

Dianne said that the reason she would die to save our son is because she has lived longer than him, and he hasn't experienced the world yet. I don't think that's a good reason. So what if someone is younger than you? That doesn't make his/her life more valuable than yours. Would you die to save the life of a beggar child on the street who is younger than you? It would be foolish to do so.

Nature is cruel, cold and heartless. It has no morals. It does not believe in a "sanctity of life". Even in the peaceful forest, there is violence everywhere, as ants and insects and animals are killing each other for survival. All life is vampiric in that it takes energy from other life in order to survive. We all have to protect, preserve and better ourselves, in order to survive and prosper. Being selfish is not a bad thing if it helps you survive. Helping others is not a bad thing either. But there is no logic in being willing to die or let yourself be killed to save someone else. That's taking it too far and seems like a human created virtue/value.

Don't forget to vote above.

That's just wrong, you sound like a right lady.

Dudess

It would appear Stiffler has the auld "My opinion is reality and everyone else has it, they just pretend they don't" syndrome?

It's ok Stiffler - YOU wouldn't die for your child, that's just the way it is. No need to make yourself feel better by pretending others feel the same way as you do. They don't, you're an exception, but hey... it's nice to stand out sometimes.

Eric Cartman

a child could grow up to become a doctor or cure cancer or something, but at the same time they could fcuk up and grow up to be a junkie, drug dealer , socialist or any other manor of horrible things, atleast I know I havent fcuked up and im useful to society , so in short I wouldnt exchange my live for anybodys child, wife, dog , president, whatever , In a life / death situation my safety is no.1 and everyone else comes second

Sunnyisland

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a child could grow up to become a doctor or cure cancer or something, but at the same time they could fcuk up and grow up to be a junkie, drug dealer , socialist or any other manor of horrible things, at least I know I havent fcuked up and i'm useful to society , so in short I wouldn't exchange my live for anybody's child, wife, dog , president, whatever , In a life / death situation my safety is no.1 and everyone else comes second

This is your own child who you helped create,They would have your genes, traits maybe even your looks, I certainly would put myself before my children.

Eric Cartman

realies wrote: »

This is your own child who you helped create,They would have your genes, traits maybe even your looks, I certainly would put myself before my children.

but their not me , different person, genes or not , even if they have half my genes theyre still not a copy of me , i can survive a plane crash and knock up an infinite amount more birds and make more kids , i cant make another me , im only around for a certain amount of time and i have a lot more to do than give up my life for somebody who isnt me

dj jarvis

faceman wrote: »

To give your life for someone else is considered the greatest sacrifice of all. Express ticket to VIP lounge in heaven and all that

The OP has a point though, people do say these things but when push comes to shove how many people really are prepared to make that sacrifice?

i would imagine if push comes to shove you would do it without thinking - as someone else said, even for a child that was not mine
even if it was more than likely both would die - you just have to do it
you would have to try

MagicSean

If I didn't save my child I think I would feel so guilty I would have to go on a vigilante rampage to ease my guilt.

Imhof Tank

dj jarvis wrote: »

i would imagine if push comes to shove you would do it without thinking - as someone else said, even for a child that was not mine
even if it was more than likely both would die - you just have to do it
you would have to try

I wonder. Im a parent of 2 and would give the expected reply, but......

I saw a documentary about Auswitz years ago and one interview with one of the guards stuck in my mind - (apologies if this is graphic but we cant hide from the fact that it happened) he was saying when the guards went in to clear out the bodies after each group were gassed, the victims were found on top of each other in a pyramid formation pointing up towards the air vent - the children's bodies were at the bottom of the pyramid, when push came to shove their parents had trampelled them for one last gasp of oxygen for themselves.

So while its all very well to sit here theorising, at the moment of truth you just never know

dj jarvis

Imhof Tank wrote: »

I wonder. Im a parent of 2 and would give the expected reply, but......

I saw a documentary about Auswitz years ago and one interview with one of the guards stuck in my mind - (apologies if this is graphic but we cant hide from the fact that it happened) he was saying when the guards went in to clear out the bodies after each group were gassed, the victims were found on top of each other in a pyramid formation pointing up towards the air vent - the children's bodies were at the bottom of the pyramid, when push came to shove their parents had trampelled them for one last gasp of oxygen for themselves.

So while its all very well to sit here theorising, at the moment of truth you just never know

true you would never know until ( god forbid ) it happens
and yes i have heard similar storys about children been used as human shields during the storming of the ghetto in warsaw ( NOT getting at jews , just i also remember that story and it HAPPENS to be the same religion - that is all )
so yes some people i suppose would have no qualms about putting their safety before a child's life

me i think i would not think about it - just react - again i have no proof of this but i just feel i would

one story that always disturbs me is the Jones town massacre - a cult of 500+ people that committed suicide , if it was all adults fair enough but they killed the kids as well - parents poisoning their own kids
now i can not get my head around that - just does not compute at all

how ****ed up do you have to be for some one to be able to convince you of that ????

flutterflye

Depends which child.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Lavezzi wrote: »

My girlfriend was shocked to hear that I would not be willing to die to save our child. I responded by saying that I was shocked that she was willing to.

I wouldnt think twice about giving up my life for my daughter, it wouldnt even be a consideration not to, she is way more important than i will ever be (to me)

If the scenario ever did occur and you chose yourself over your son you would be giving up much more than your son. You would also lose your girlfriend and probably your family and most of your friends, no one would ever forgive you for your selfishness and you probably would never forgive yourself either. You'd live out a sad and lonely existence in which you'd spend your time wracked in guilt and regret. So think of the after effects and answer the question again.....

soterpisc

Pathetic ..... I would do anything to save my kids. They mean everything to me.

lolli

Op,

When you are sitting in a hospital beside your very ill child not knowing if they'll live or die you'll know the answer for sure.(I hope this never happens to your children) When my daughter became seriously ill at 3 weeks old I would have done anything in this world to switch places with her.

Eric Cartman

CJC999 wrote: »

If the scenario ever did occur and you chose yourself over your son you would be giving up much more than your son. You would also lose your girlfriend and probably your family and most of your friends, no one would ever forgive you for your selfishness and you probably would never forgive yourself either. You'd live out a sad and lonely existence in which you'd spend your time wracked in guilt and regret. So think of the after effects and answer the question again.....

I must be very lucky , I dont think most of my family could be that horrible , I think if the situation came down to it theyd be glad that they didnt lose 2 people , no wonder youd choose to give yourself up if you think your family are like that, must be harsh having a family who would turn on you like that

MiniSquish

I don't have any children but I think that given the dilemma that I'd have to make that choice then I would give up my life for my childs. My 3 year old cousin was hit by a car and killed and I think any of us in the family, adults and teenagers alike would've traded places if we could've. The grief that a family goes through when a child dies is so much worse, in my opinion than when an older person even someone who hasn't reached becoming elderly dies. A child hasn't had the chance to experience anything, given the choice I'd say I would definitely die to save my child, to be honest it kind of shocked me that some people would have to think about that, especially people that have children.

Aurum

I think it's a flawed hypothetical. There are so few occurrences where a person has to make an independent decision as to whether or not they would die for another. Whether you would risk your life for your child/another person is different question. I don't have a child, but if there was an emergency situation and I thought that I could save a person I would probably try. But then again, most of those situations would involve you being capable enough to actually rescue the other person (i.e. bring them back from danger), so unless you were capable enough to rescue them, thus saving both of you, there is no point in trying, because you would both just die.

Also, to the "children are the meaning of life!1!" people, I find it very funny that you think you know, definitively, what the meaning of life is. The meaning of life is an inherently subjective question. There are so many, perfectly plausible, hypotheses, that don't revolve around procreation. I know that if procreation stopped, we're done for as a species, but that doesn't mean that it is the sole, great "meaning of life".

augustus gloop

alot of people slamming the OP, but i imagine some of those very sure people would baulk at the moment of decision.... how liveable would your life be afterwards???? guilt would surely be a noose around your neck for the rest of your days

IrishEyes19

Eric Cartman wrote: »

a child could grow up to become a doctor or cure cancer or something, but at the same time they could fcuk up and grow up to be a junkie, drug dealer , socialist or any other manor of horrible things, atleast I know I havent fcuked up and im useful to society , so in short I wouldnt exchange my live for anybodys child, wife, dog , president, whatever , In a life / death situation my safety is no.1 and everyone else comes second

I respect everyone's views as people really do differ in opinion. But this just baffles me. A child isnt a lottery game, where you hope for the best that it's a "decent one," Sure I pride my safety, but I wouldnt waste a second putting that second for my child, family and dear friends. I might be out of line saying this, but I think self preservation mentality like this, is terribly selfish.

Laois_Man

This story reminded me of this thread.

An American woman dies of cancer after refusing to undergo chemotherapy so that she could save the life of her unborn baby. The OP probably thinks she did this coz society told her to!

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16091543

Shows the premise of this is not as wild as you might think

seamus

Aurum wrote: »

I think it's a flawed hypothetical. There are so few occurrences where a person has to make an independent decision as to whether or not they would die for another.

Indeed. If placed in a room with just them and their child and a gunman who says that he will kill one of you and let the other live, most people will tell him to take them and leave the child. Anyone who would tell him to take the child is probably a sociopath or has some other form of mental disorder or emotional disconnect. But as you say it's a flawed theoretical because it's ridiculously unlikely to ever come up like that.

Whether you would risk your life for your child/another person is different question.

I think that's the important one.
Where the parent is taking a massive risk to their own life with a high chance of saving the child (think pushing them out of the way of a train), then most answers will likely be in the positive.
In a scenario where the child is at risk of dying, and you have very little, if any chance of saving them, and any attempt to do so would probably result in dying yourself, then you might get a mixed bag of answers.
Hard to come up with such a scenario, but thinking of a railway bridge over a ravine, child in the middle of it and a train after entering from the far end. About the best a parent could do is run up the child and throw them off. They have no chance of picking up the child and outrunning the train. So if they do nothing, the child will die. If they do something, they will both probably die.

I know that if procreation stopped, we're done for as a species, but that doesn't mean that it is the sole, great "meaning of life".

If you consider that there probably is no "meaning of life", the the more pertinent question is "what is the point of being alive", and the logical answer is "to procreate". Life exists to procreate. It's an utterly pointless feedback loop of regeneration, but that's what life is. So jump in and start shagging.

Jerri Jordan

Without a doubt I would save my little girl. Even when she is sick i truly wish i could take the sickness in her place. She is my number one priority in life. And I would give my own life for hers ten times over. I was in agony bringing her into this world.And i would take agony again to save her. I was stitched up in unimaginable places! and i love those scars because they gave her life.

thebigbiffo

Lavezzi wrote: »

I would not be willing to die to save our child.

you have a mental disorder. no human being could possibly disassociate themselves to such an extent from their own offspring without there being a problem of some type. get help.

Dudess

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Lavezzi wrote: »

I would not be willing to die to save our child.

you have a mental disorder. no human being could possibly disassociate themselves to such an extent from their own offspring without there being a problem of some type. get help.

But lavezzi is a renegade railing against the sheeple (as opposed to just having paranoid, nut-job views) - we're the ones who need help, not him clearly.

mfceiling

Had a dream recently were my 5 year old was running across the wall of a slurry pit.
I was trying to stop her and then at the last moment she fell in - i jumped straight in to her knowing i would die too.

I woke up in a sweat and my heart was going 100mph - so yes i would die for my children - any one or all of them.

Dudess

Eric Cartman wrote: »

CJC999 wrote: »

If the scenario ever did occur and you chose yourself over your son you would be giving up much more than your son. You would also lose your girlfriend and probably your family and most of your friends, no one would ever forgive you for your selfishness and you probably would never forgive yourself either. You'd live out a sad and lonely existence in which you'd spend your time wracked in guilt and regret. So think of the after effects and answer the question again.....

I must be very lucky , I dont think most of my family could be that horrible , I think if the situation came down to it theyd be glad that they didnt lose 2 people , no wonder youd choose to give yourself up if you think your family are like that, must be harsh having a family who would turn on you like that

Must also be harsh to have a family member who wouldn't put their life before that of their kid.