would you give your life to save a child who wasn't your own?

Wacker The Attacker · 16-04-2015 11:05PM

hell no.

little johnny is getting his sorry little ass drowned

NomadicGray · 16-04-2015 11:07PM

I'd find a way to save us both and bang the kids mother and probably get a medal too

PARlance · 16-04-2015 11:10PM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's "were", not "where".

^^^^
There's a Kid getting left behind

sam34 · 16-04-2015 11:10PM

No, of course not

Robsweezie · 16-04-2015 11:12PM

To add to the OP, if you had no kids and no binding responsibilities, what about it then?

Tokyo · 16-04-2015 11:12PM

Robsweezie wrote: »

At school once we were presented with burning building and sinking boat" scenarios where we were asked who would we save from a list of people like pregnant women, children.

In a situation where a child's life was threatened, and ONLY you were around to intervene, say a hostage situation, or any situation where one of you will surely die, would you take a bullet for said child, even though they are a mere stranger to you?

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios described though. The first, of course there is risk involved, but there are some odds of you both walking away from it. The second situation, the kid is in danger, you take a bullet for the kid, and 5 seconds later, the kid is back at square one, in danger again.

The first scenario, if I thought there was any chance at all, then yes, I'd give it my all to try and save the kid (and myself). Maybe die trying, but at least I had a chance to begin with.

The second, probably not, particularly if it's not my own kid. Sorry, i kinda like myself and i'd be much happier if i kept on living. And knowing my luck, the kid would probably grow up to be the next Hitler anyways.

PARlance · 16-04-2015 11:13PM

Do we get a chance to clear our browser history?

goz83 · 16-04-2015 11:15PM

Depends on the childs nationality and post code

jamesbere · 16-04-2015 11:16PM

These questions are kind of pointless because no one know's how they will instinctively react under a life or death situation. You might save the child or you might use the child as buoyancy aid to keep yourself alive.

bb1234567 · 16-04-2015 11:23PM

No, certainly not for a child I don't know. The guilt would nearly kill me afterwards though so maybe it'd be best I just took the bullet.

One eyed Jack · 16-04-2015 11:31PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know if I could live with the knowledge that I could have done something but chose not to.

Aye, I'd be the same as this. I couldn't simply let a child perish when I know they could have lived if I had to give my life instead. I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

In saying that, if it were a sinking ship, there'd be no point in lobbing a child into freezing cold water where they were likely to either die of shock on hitting the water, or die five minutes later of hypothermia. In that case I'd simply stay with the child, because like above, I wouldn't be able to live with the death of a child on my conscience if I didn't.

To be perfectly honest, I feel the same way about it if it were an adult in that situation, the end of the day we're talking about another human being here, and in any circumstances I couldn't live with the death of another human being on my conscience.

One eyed Jack · 16-04-2015 11:38PM

jamesbere wrote: »

These questions are kind of pointless because no one know's how they will instinctively react under a life or death situation. You might save the child or you might use the child as buoyancy aid to keep yourself alive.

Maaaan that's cold :pac:

Wouldn't work anyway because dead bodies don't provide much bouyancy, they sink once the lungs fill up with water, and then it takes some time before they float to the surface again (bacteria release gases - body floats).

Mallagio · 16-04-2015 11:44PM

I don't think you have any time to think of this when it's happening and if you have any good in you, you'll try your best to save anyone.

Whether you die or not is not something you have time to consider imo.

Filmer Paradise · 16-04-2015 11:47PM

goz83 wrote: »

Depends on the childs nationality and post code

Good point.

I'd also draw the line if it was a fat child.

jamesbere · 16-04-2015 11:47PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Maaaan that's cold :pac:

Wouldn't work anyway because dead bodies don't provide much bouyancy, they sink once the lungs fill up with air, and then it takes some time before they float to the surface again (bacteria release gases - body floats).

You've tested it out so :pac:

Junkyard Tom · 16-04-2015 11:58PM

Robsweezie wrote: »

And here I was expecting tons of PC "of course I would" responses, but no..

I have a question for you. How exactly would answering in the affirmative be 'Political Correctness'?

Take your time.

Noobascious · 17-04-2015 12:20AM

It's yes or no. Do a poll

17-04-2015 12:26AM

My head says No, you should only concede your remaining days for a good cause.

My better sense says Yes, a child has more fruitful promise, and more fruitful promise again for your having added your days unto his. O do not wallow in your excess of life.

I hope I would say Yes, Yes! (and his heart was going like mad, and Yes I said Yes I will: Yes")

strobe · 17-04-2015 12:36AM

Are they hot?

Steve_Carella · 17-04-2015 12:43AM

No. I prefer being alive to being dead. Shoot the kid and hurry up. I'm starving, I wanna get a burger on the way home.

Vic_08 · 17-04-2015 01:10AM

strobe wrote: »

Are they hot?

I think your best strategy now is to claim that what you posted was a trick question to catch others out.

pauliebdub · 17-04-2015 01:14AM

It's a question that's impossible to answer, no one knows how they would react in an actual situation where a child is in danger.

Robsweezie · 17-04-2015 01:52AM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

I have a question for you. How exactly would answering in the affirmative be 'Political Correctness'?

Take your time.

as in saving a child being the ''right'' and correct thing to do as a child has not lived long enough to die having truly ''lived'' so to speak (reaching adulthood, getting married, reaching their potential) as opposed to doing nothing which could be seen as ''selfish'' by some.

evo2000 · 17-04-2015 02:04AM

Id do what ever it took to save a child if the situation presented itself, i dont know how people would casually just say no and stroll off its a helpless child ffs the ****s wrong with people obviously no one wants to die and id do my upmost not to but would still do what it took !

Sierra 117 · 17-04-2015 02:14AM

No.

Steve_Carella · 17-04-2015 02:18AM

pauliebdub wrote: »

It's a question that's impossible to answer, no one knows how they would react in an actual situation where a child is in danger.

No but I'm pretty sure I know how I'd react in a situation where MY life was in danger.

LadyAthame · 17-04-2015 02:26AM

I think I would. But I remember listening to a man describe how he didn't save his son from a fire when he tried to go in the heat was so intense he could feel his skin blistering and found his body moving the other way. It depends on how much physical pain you can endure. I am a pretty strong person. But would people be naive to think they could endure torture so certainly?

I would just save us both it's more badass.

Robsweezie · 17-04-2015 04:08AM

mike_ie wrote: »

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios described though. The first, of course there is risk involved, but there are some odds of you both walking away from it. The second situation, the kid is in danger, you take a bullet for the kid, and 5 seconds later, the kid is back at square one, in danger again.

The first scenario, if I thought there was any chance at all, then yes, I'd give it my all to try and save the kid (and myself). Maybe die trying, but at least I had a chance to begin with.

The second, probably not, particularly if it's not my own kid. Sorry, i kinda like myself and i'd be much happier if i kept on living. And knowing my luck, the kid would probably grow up to be the next Hitler anyways.

this may sound implausible, and I know real life is real life, but in the OP I was thinking more of a scripted series of events where one gunshot is made, hitting either you or the child should you fail to protect him, the gunman fleeing the scene leaving one alive and the other dying/needing medical attention, depending on your actions. so in my own scripted scenario the child would be left unharmed if you take the bullet. and the child could have those precious few seconds to speed off if you were to do the same in real life, following the commotion of the shooting. depends I guess.

diomed · 17-04-2015 05:23AM

Robsweezie wrote: »

At school once we were presented with burning building and sinking boat" scenarios where we were asked who would we save from a list of people like pregnant women, children. The elderly etc. or just save ourselves, it was like a test of character and morality.

Start crying. Say you were traumatised by the dilemma, and sue the school.

Canis Lupus · 17-04-2015 05:25AM

strobe wrote: »

Are they hot?

If the child was on fire I suppose.

would you give your life to save a child who wasn't your own?

Comments