Could you Leave Your Child behind to Save the Other 2?

First off, please don't over think the premiss. It's a hypothetical where only the options given are available. So no beating the scenario, it's one or the other....... If some one can think of a better example then mine feel free.



Ok, so to the point......


You and your 3 children are on the edge of a volcano that's about to erupt. Your children can't run, you will have to carry them. Here's the kicker. You can only carry 2 and have any hope of out running the eruption. So the question is, could you leave one child behind to save the other 2? Or would you just stay there with all 3 while the volcano erupted?


Obviously the logical answer is to save the 2 you can, but could you make that call
If you had to?

a reply to: ArtemisE

I would stay there with all three of them. I'd rather die than leave any child of mine to such a fate anyway. Might as well perish in the arms of three little angels.

I'd face that "fire" together.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I think when that time comes (hopefully not in my life time) humans do whatever is necessary at the moment and if that involves saving only two of your children then there will be just it...But it will be a very hard and hurt breaking decision.

I'd take them all and run - mothers in that position would find a way to carry all three. One in each arm, and one piggy back, or being held by the arms by the other two.
Adrenaline would take care of the rest.

Do you think the other 2 would be fine with whatever mommy decides?

WHERE are you coming up with these questions, and why?

EDIT: WHY can't the other two run? Are they crippled triplets? if NONE of them can run, then - I'd do my best to carry all three - and I guess we'd all die, but we'd die trying, and we'd die together.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ArtemisE

I would stay there with all three of them. I'd rather die than leave any child of mine to such a fate anyway. Might as well perish in the arms of three little angels.

But that's not the question. Would you rather your other 2 children die before you left one behind. I think all of us would lose our lives for one of our children, but this requires letting your other children die because you couldn't leave one.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I'd take them all and run - mothers in that position would find a way to carry all three. One in each arm, and one piggy back, or being held by the arms by the other two.
Adrenaline would take care of the rest.

Do you think the other 2 would be fine with whatever mommy decides?

WHERE are you coming up with these questions, and why?

Taking all 3 is not an option.... Hence the disclaimer in the OP....... I'm presently using my brain to come up with these.... Usually I'm using my brain and some medical grade pot.... But haven't smoked today yet, so this ones all me! :p

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ArtemisE

I would stay there with all three of them. I'd rather die than leave any child of mine to such a fate anyway. Might as well perish in the arms of three little angels.

But that's not the question. Would you rather your other 2 children die before you left one behind. I think all of us would lose our lives for one of our children, but this requires letting your other children die because you couldn't leave one.

"Could you Leave Your Child behind to Save the Other 2?"

That is your question. My answer is no. In that scenario, the volcano will claim all four of us, because I leave no family behind. And you're not going to get a different answer just because it makes your game easier to play.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Taking all 3 is not an option.... Hence the disclaimer in the OP

I need to know WHY it is not an option. That's how I problem-solve. Women with children do not simply "give up" unless they've examined all the possibilities.

(You need to quickly edit your post for T&C - but) Beyond that, I'd carry two and push the third one along in front of us. See, the other two would be just as messed up if I left one as I would be. I would NEVER abandon one of them - the consequences would be unbearable - the other two would never forgive me OR themselves. Life would no longer be worth living - in fact, it would be hell.

It's impossible, however "logical" you think it would be, to live with the decision to let one of your kids die.

So, no. We'd face it together, holding each other. I'll not let one of my kids suffer ANYTHING if I can help it at all.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ArtemisE

Taking all 3 is not an option.... Hence the disclaimer in the OP

I need to know WHY it is not an option. That's how I problem-solve. Women with children do not simply "give up" unless they've examined all the possibilities.

"Women"? Please. Give the guys some credit here.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ArtemisE

I would stay there with all three of them. I'd rather die than leave any child of mine to such a fate anyway. Might as well perish in the arms of three little angels.

But that's not the question. Would you rather your other 2 children die before you left one behind. I think all of us would lose our lives for one of our children, but this requires letting your other children die because you couldn't leave one.

Where I see the injustice is you surviving along with your 2 remaining children after leaving one child to die "ALONE".

If I could rescue the two but have a choice of going back to die with the other I would. I couldn't live with living if you know what I mean.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ArtemisE

Taking all 3 is not an option.... Hence the disclaimer in the OP

I need to know WHY it is not an option. That's how I problem-solve. Women with children do not simply "give up" unless they've examined all the possibilities.

It's pretend....lol



Sorry I had to. :p

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: ArtemisE

I would stay there with all three of them. I'd rather die than leave any child of mine to such a fate anyway. Might as well perish in the arms of three little angels.

But that's not the question. Would you rather your other 2 children die before you left one behind. I think all of us would lose our lives for one of our children, but this requires letting your other children die because you couldn't leave one.

Where I see the injustice is you surviving along with your 2 remaining children after leaving one child to die "ALONE".

If I could rescue the two but have a choice of going back to die with the other I would. I couldn't live with living if you know what I mean.

I feel ya, but that's not an option. Nor would it be what's best for the other 2. Then they grow up less a parent and a sibling. Justice has nothing to do with it. This is about the reality of it.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

So its your decision to forfeit the lives of yourself and two of your other children, because you aren't able to bring the third child along as well? That's kind of sadistic.

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: AfterInfinity

So its your decision to forfeit the lives of yourself and two of your other children, because you aren't able to bring the third child along as well? That's kind of sadistic.

And it's your decision to decide which child you leave to die alone and terrified while the rest of you go on to lead happy lives. That's totally sadistic. If you would choose to leave ANY of your family behind, for any reason...yeah. So let's not go there.

Besides, if anyone is sadistic, it's the person forcing us to give an answer that violates pretty much every moral code we've grown up with. Yeah, I'm looking at you, Artemise.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: AfterInfinity

So its your decision to forfeit the lives of yourself and two of your other children, because you aren't able to bring the third child along as well? That's kind of sadistic.

And it's your decision to decide which child you leave to die alone and terrified while the rest of you go on to lead happy lives. That's totally sadistic. If you would choose to leave ANY of your family behind, for any reason...yeah. Don't even start.

Neither choice is sadistic at all. It's a horrible scenario with no good choice, only 2 bad.

a reply to: ArtemisE Since this is hypothetical does that one child grow up to be an athiest?
Now that is just a joke i would take off my pants and stuff the legs with them and carry them all. There is always another choice.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: ArtemisESince this is hypothetical does that one child grow up to be an athiest?
Now that is just a joke i would take off my pants and stuff the legs with them and carry them all.

....Now THAT'S an awesome answer. I'm with this guy. He knows how to get the job done.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

What your saying affects more people than what I'm saying. My option is the one with less repercussions. I somewhat understand where you're coming from but in reality, saving two and leaving one behind is the logical option. That way they have the chance to live. You grab who you can and get out, you shouldn't have to think of "which one do I like more".

My sister died in a car accident with my parents and me in the car when we were children. Should my mother have just killed my father, me, then herself, because it would be unfair to continue living afterwards?

originally posted by: blindlyzack
a reply to: AfterInfinity

What your saying affects more people than what I'm saying. My option is the one with less repercussions. I somewhat understand where you're coming from but in reality, saving two and leaving one behind is the logical option. That way they have the chance to live. You grab who you can and get out, you shouldn't have to think of "which one do I like more".

My sister died in a car accident with my parents and me when we were children. Should my mother have just killed my father, me, then herself, because it would be unfair to continue living afterwards?

And regardless of why kind of sick and depraved bottle-neck Artemise wants to squeeze us into, I would gladly strip off my pants and carry those kids like so much laundry in a duffle bag. Because I don't give up on family.