It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Read through all of the posts at this point and am amazed at the parents who would rather just die with all 3 children! As parents, you are in a leadership role. I have 3 daughters. I had made the choice to do whatever I can to assure my children live full lives and to the fullest. In such a dire situation...I would definitely save 2 of my children. Survivors guilt will not be an issue, since I will still have a lifetime of watching my other 2 children blossom and live full lives! Plus, logically, I would assume my family would go through a normal grieving process as any one does with a loved one dying. This in time passes and you continue on, with a renewed sense of the gift of living. Which child gets left behind??? All depends on the exact circumstances of endangerment and accessibility. Different scenarios, different results. It is insane and seems so callous to me at the thought of just sitting there to die with all of my children if I could save 2 of them! Why create such a tragedy of death for your surviving friends, family, and community? How more rewarding for everyone to celebrate lives saved? Naturally, I would want to save them all...but that is not an option in this scenario!

Edit add: I would hope that if someone else was with my children, they would save at least two of them! All children are precious even if they are not your own. I, also, would think that any parent would be quite happy if I saved 2 of their 3 children, instead of just sitting down with them so they don't die alone!?!


If it some one else's kids I think they always take 2. It's the fact that (mostly mothers) consider the family unit as one big entity. Kinda ignoring the lives the 2 surviving kids would have had.

I guess this does have parallels in reguardless to women in the military.




posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shana91aus
I have 3 children, and there is no way i could leave one behind to save the other 2, i would rather us all go together, that may sound selfish because i know if i left one i could be sparing 2 of my childrens lives, but i couldnt live with myself after abandoning one of my children and leaving them to such a horrible death. In reality i would probably just run like crazy with all 3, the thought of leaving one behind to save the other 2 honestly probably wouldnt even cross my mind anyway. Man what a horrible situation that would be to have to decide that, its sad because people actually do have to make these decisions every day in some parts of the world it seems so cruel..


You don't think the lives of your children aren't worth any pain you could feel?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
It's also intresting the women seem to be far more worried about the "feelings" they would have, then the lives they would save. IMHO emotions aren't reality. Emotions are how we perceive reality. Just because you feel like your husband screwed up doesn't mean he did. Lol



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

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.


Quite - In fact, woman and problem solving is not a sentence I'd often construct.

They are often problem creators, so in this scenario it would probably be my missus's fault for us being near the Volcano anyway - something about it being "pretty" no doubt...

But, to answer the OP, I'd save my daughter and youngest son - the eldest boy is bloody annoying, 10 going on 15, so he'd only moan about me ruining his street cred anyway if I ran down the mountain with him slung over my shoulder.

You can always make more kids, anyway.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE

You do realize that it wasn't an option lol. The OP isn't " how can you carry 3 kids down a volcano". It's could you leave one child to die to save the other 2?


If you couldn't, just say I couldn't, and all your kids die.

I bet like 2/3rds of responders ignored the question and tried to figure out the best way to carry 3 kids.


I acknowledged the impossible questions asked OP
but I couldn't leave any of them to perish so had to find a better way to respond...



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Many in this thread have failed to take the advice of the author in the opening post: don't overthink the circumstances of the scenario, rather consider what decision you would make if the situation were to occur.

The purpose of asking the reader to place themselves in the scenario is not for problem-solving reasons, but rather for them to question their own conscience and sense of morality.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Normally, a volcano shakes a lot before it erupts, even for days....Am I wrong?!?! Why would anyone in their right mind EVER want to go onto an erupting volcano with their kids?!?


It would a very very stupid move...imo

Back on topic though, if I were that stupid (I ain't), I would stay with all of them. The only person's life I would sacrifice to save my children would be my own if I were sure they would survive with their Mom....that is an extreme scenario, I only said this because we have had this conversation before and we both agreed that if it was a choice betwwen any one of the kids's life or one of ours, we would go, not the kids that have a full life ahead of them.

Of course If there was a way to save all of them THAT would be the best option, but in this case, its not an option?

I just have 1 question for anyone who would choose to leave a child behind
how would you be able to pick which one to "sacrifice" and still be able to to look at the other 2 in the eyes after?!?! I didnt read all the posts, but NO parent that TRULY love their children equaly and unconditionally could EVER leave a child to die on their own



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Teye22

I would save the ones I could. There lives are that important. If I couldnt live with myself afterwords then fine once they are with their mother I would kill myself. To me staying with all three for certain death would be the same as murdering two of my children.
You can't understand how some could save two and I can't understand how others can kill their children.

My feeling of guilt over my choice doesn't override my instincts to keep them alive.

If the children were dying in the hospital and there was only enough medicine to save two you better believe I would save two. I sure as hell wouldn't say "since they can't all live it's better if they all die". That really is the same scenario except me as a parent has no choice to live on. In the other scenarios you get an easy option of dying therefore you don't have to live with your guilt. Same as murder suicide. For me choosing death for them in any instance is insane and not an option. The one who has to live with the choice is me. It would be my burden but at least two could go on living and hopefully find happiness.
edit on 23-6-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
One on my back, one on each arm, i'd run as fast and as long as I can until we were safe or we all perished together. Never, ever underestimate a mothers love for her children and what she would do to keep them ALL safe.

This is not a question a mother can answer in the way you want. A real mother loves her children equally, period and would never, under any circumstances leave one behind to save the others, it just wouldn't enter her mind. What would the other children think of her? "she just left my sibling behind", they would hate her and she would hate herself....wouldn't happen.

Anyone who would leave one child over the other is undeserving of the title "mom"

If worse came to worse i'd allow my children to use my body as a surfboard out of there in a last chance effort to save them. Though honestly I do not know enough about volcano lava to know whether that would actually be feasible.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teye22
I just have 1 question for anyone who would choose to leave a child behind
how would you be able to pick which one to "sacrifice" and still be able to to look at the other 2 in the eyes after?!?! I didnt read all the posts, but NO parent that TRULY love their children equaly and unconditionally could EVER leave a child to die on their own


Easy, pick the most annoying one and it will serve as a lesson to the surviving two (and any further procreates) to not muck about, otherwise it is the pyroclastic flow for them!

Like I said, you can always make more



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Many in this thread have failed to take the advice of the author in the opening post: don't overthink the circumstances of the scenario, rather consider what decision you would make if the situation were to occur.

The purpose of asking the reader to place themselves in the scenario is not for problem-solving reasons, but rather for them to question their own conscience and sense of morality.


It automatically instigates a problem-solving overthinking process to answer for many. 1 cannot answer it simply.
Its like asking if you were in the transition phase of life and death within existence and you seen a LIGHT* would you go into the light or avoid it? w/ a yes or no answer...



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: brandiwine14
Anyone who would leave one child over the other is undeserving of the title "mom"


There does seem to be an overwhelming opinion this thread that only Mothers look after kids.

There are such things as fathers and, to be honest, would probably be better in this sort of situation. I know my missus would be a panicked wreck and next to useless, so I'd have 4 people to get off the mountain.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
this is quite a morbid topic to stumble on in the morning.

My answer is no. I could never choose one child over the others in any circumstance, even in a happy, exciting situation. I could not leave one child behind and take the other two to Disney World, either.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Yes.

That question wasn't hard for me. I am curious as to why you think that question may be hard.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Really, the breeding pair is more important than the children because if the children die the breeding pair can always make more children.

I understand this may sound cold, and it is, but then reality is pretty cold if you are ever forced to face it,....

Which so very few have....



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Yes.

That question wasn't hard for me. I am curious as to why you think that question may be hard.



I don't think its hard but I have asked it to some in person and upset them...



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a silly question deserves a silly answer so heres mine
id just piss on the volcano and put it out
then we would all walk down together
ha

a reply to: ArtemisE


edit on 23/6/2014 by maryhinge because: spell check



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Really? You think you would be best? The guy who has no need to even think about which child to allow to die? Clearly, not all fathers would be better at this sort of situation. Not all women are the nervous wrecks you assume us to be.

I do know many dads and my husband included though who would never choose and would instead step up and find a way out of the situation or would die trying without leaving their children behind. Dads look after kids too and many do a damn great job.

But, as a mother I can say that you and the rest of the fathers need to look at it from our perspective. Life grows inside us, we feel it, we grow with it, we go through hell and pain to bring that life into this world, we nurse that life and if you think that we would allow all that for nothing then you are not thinking. We would walk into hell and face anything, anything, for them. It is instinct for most of us (though, apparently not all) and many fathers sure...but clearly not for you. You so easily would give up one because "we can make more".....so gross and disturbing.



edit on 23-6-2014 by brandiwine14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArtemisE


If it some one else's kids I think they always take 2. It's the fact that (mostly mothers) consider the family unit as one big entity. Kinda ignoring the lives the 2 surviving kids would have had.

I guess this does have parallels in reguardless to women in the military.


Being a mother it is true that I consider my family as complete and whole, yet I am still logical enough to realize that being the case, it is instinctually better for my family to survive at all costs. I don't care what others would think of my choice, since when one has to act quickly in any emergency...instincts kick in, not emotions. There is no time as one may have in a hypothetical situation. I believe most mothers would make the same choice as me in a real situation, though for some reason are fearful to admit it, even to themselves.

Not sure what you mean regarding women in the military?



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner
I would think that the parents who cannot reproduce any longer, would be even more determined to save at least 2 of their progeny?




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join