• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What would you do if...

L

linuxboy

Elite Member
An interesting idea floated across my brain and I used my fishing net to catch it.

Imagine you are standing on a bridge and see your significant other/spouse as well your young biological child in a river below. Neither can swim. Assume you want to help them and are not some disturbed person who would watch the scene unresponsively. Also assume that nobody else is around and the only way to save them is for you to jump in. Assume further that you can swim very well and that there are no additional devices or methods to saving except for jumping in and pulling one to shore.

You can only pull one to shore at a time and the likelihood of survival of the remaining person is equal no matter what decision is made, thus the likelihood of death is also equal. However, the remaining person has a 99.8 % chance of dying so practically you can only save one and this is what you think when considering which one to save- that the other dies. Which do you save/pull to shore first, the spouse/mate or the child?

For the creative thinkers out there, please discount prayer and ideas of supernatural intervention, chaos theory, heidenburg's uncertainty principle (look, I'm a giraffe !), and all sorts of good twists that I haven't set limits to.

Vote in the poll and please provide some explanation of why you would choose that way. There may not be a rational answer so just say "because" or "I feel that way" or some other sort of reason.

I would save the child. Not quite sure why though.

Thanks.

Cheers ! 🙂
 
a typical question asked to many different people through their lives but, i too would save the child although dealiing with either loss would be near unbearable i feel the child has not lived as long and should experience life. I'm sure my spouse would agree to save the child as well.
 
if it is a child how come you can't scoop them up first and then swim over to your SO with the kid and tow them both to shore? if i can swim, seems resonable.
 
Hi yobarman. 🙂

these questions are so stupid and they don't prove anything.

Please don't crap in my thread. There is no real point to this question except a random thought and some inquiry into self, hence its posting in the 'Off Topic' forum.

Cheers ! 🙂
 
Hey pyonir 🙂

In response to your post, please see the following:

For the creative thinkers out there, please discount prayer and ideas of supernatural intervention, chaos theory, heidenburg's uncertainty principle (look, I'm a giraffe !), and all sorts of good twists that I haven't set limits to.

I think your solution qualifies as a creative one that I have not expressly stated so please let's omit it for the purpose of simplicity. The choice is one or the other.


Cheers ! 🙂
 
A story I once heard told by a pastor.

A Christian man took his 13 year old son and his son's friend to the ocean. I don't remember all the details, riptide or something, but he had to make the choice between saving his son or saving his son's friend. The man, knowing that his son knew Christ and knowing that the friend didn't, made the heart-wrenching decision to save the friend. He got him to shore and then had to watch his own son drown. The man that told this story to the audience I was in then paused. After a moment he said, "I was that friend, and I later accepted Christ."

As a Christian, the father knew his son would go to heaven based on his faith. I can't imagine ever having to make such a choice, but I know that whoever I marry would have the same faith that I do and I could be confident of their salvation through Jesus Christ. The child, on the other hand, would not have the chance to make that choice if it died. (No conversation starters about the age of innocence here please.) So I guess I would save the child.
 
>>I am male and I would save the child<<

I voted this way because the option for sacrificing myself to save both my wife and child was not listed...
 
I'm a male and I would save the child.

Purely based on the fact that the child has a longer "time" to live. This is hard to judge as you can't really put a judgement on time to save a person's life, but I would feel it would be even easier if the spouse in the scenario was 70 years old and the child was 5, if you understand what I mean -- not like that would fit this scenario, but if the persons were that old, respectively.
 


<< these questions are so stupid and they don't prove anything. >>


There is a certain irony in seeing this comment from yobarman, who starts topics with titles like "I think I woke up legally drunk."

I think this is an excellent and thought-provoking topic (which is the norm from linuxboy, of course.) Unfortunately, I get very disturbed even contemplating the notion that one of my children might die before me, so I can't really ponder the hypothetical situation posited here.

linuxboy, have you ever read "Sophie's Choice," by William Styron? It involves an agonizing choice regarding a mother and her children. I recommend it. Painful reading, but the pain is somehow cleansing.

 


<< Hard question. Since I have not yet had kids I can't really answer it fairly... >>



Me neither. I've never truly loved a girl either. So, I have no idea...
 


<<

<< Hard question. Since I have not yet had kids I can't really answer it fairly... >>



Me neither. I've never truly loved a girl either. So, I have no idea... >>


Same here. I think I'll save the child though. The woman I love would want me to save the child. Of course, how friggen big is the kid? If I can swim that well, can't the kid go on the mom's back?

Bah, so hard. I'll just jump in, give my kid a hug, my wife one last kiss, and die with them.
 
Betty, it's on my reading list; I will certainly get to it this summer. Thanks much for the recommendation. I know the thought is a tad morbid since for a parent, contemplating the premature death of a child is painful. At the same time, it makes us question our priorities and values as well as the value of human life and our own lives. Many here are unable to make such a decision given a lack of children and a lack of committed marital relationships. Maybe for us young'uns, thinking about these matters beforehand is even more important.

Good responses here. Thank you.

Oh and HC, what about the whole age of in... 🙂


Cheers ! 🙂
 
how hot is my wife?

Subjectively perfect in every way. Likewise, the child has no flaws. That make your decision easier or is this some attempt at humor?


Cheers ! 🙂
 
I'm a male, chose my spouse.

I would have been with my wife longer, be more attached to her and be wanting to spend my life with her. I would feel increadibly guilty with either decision i made. But At least if i save my wife i can still be with the person i love and continue to have a family.
 
I would save my spouse, because I fell in love with her (presumably) rather than loving my child out of necessity as it might be 🙂
 


<< If I saved my wife and not my son she would kill me for not saving our son. >>



That's my answer too!

 
I am a male and I think that I would save the child. As someone (not here) said, I don't want to bury my son, I want my son to bury me.

Rallispec - That's a very compelling thought.
linuxboy - This is strangely reminiscent of the "would you want to die before your spouse" question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top