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

Vic_08

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

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

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

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

No.

Steve_Carella

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

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

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

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

strobe wrote: »

Are they hot?

If the child was on fire I suppose.

Badly Drunk Boy

Probably not. The kid you save could grow up to be the next Hitler or Louis Walsh.

wijam

Robsweezie wrote: »

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

My scenario and I'd like to think yes, but it is one of them scenarios that unless it happens you don't really know, no matter what answer you give

Optimalprimerib

I honestly don't know. I would like to think I would, but if it was a split second reaction with no time to think my instinct would take over.

It is the same if I killed a person driving and it was my fault. I would like to think I would stay at the scene, but the fear and adreniline might be too strong and I could drive off.

Unless it happens I couldn't tell u.

Optimalprimerib

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

I honestly don't know. I would like to think I would, but if it was a split second reaction with no time to think my instinct would take over.

It is the same if I killed a person driving and it was my fault. I would like to think I would stay at the scene, but the fear and adreniline might be too strong and I could drive off.

But they are completely different.

One is giving your life selflessly, the greatest sacrifice. One is just not being a complete and utter scumbag, and a criminal too.

Chrome342

Yes. But he/she needs to be close to my heart

strobe

strobe wrote: »

Are they hot?

Why don't you take a seat right over here..

The Dark Side

No way.

I'm not going to leave my own kids fatherless just to save some random little snot-nosed brat.

neil_hosey

was this a priest/brother asking the question?

No chance if I knew I was 100% going to die.

If there was kid drowning I would obviously jump in to try save them under normal circumstances.

But if I knew it was guaranteed that I would die in the process there's no chance I'd jump in

hopgog

Deleted User wrote: »

No chance if I knew I was 100% going to die.

If there was kid drowning I would obviously jump in to try save them under normal circumstances.

But if I knew it was guaranteed that I would die in the process there's no chance I'd jump in

abcnews.go.com/WN/teens-drown-wading-louisianas-red-river/story?id=11312631

They had to know they where going to die when they jumped in to help, don't knpw why they all jumped in when it was hopeless.

Vic_08

The Dark Side wrote: »

No way.

I'm not going to leave my own snot-nosed brats fatherless just to save some random little kid.

fyp.

bb1234567

strobe wrote: »

Are they hot?

The child?

AlexisM

It's all very noble saying yes you would but it's very much a heat of the moment thing. I'm sure most adults would be the human shield for a child rather than use a child as a human shield in a bullet situation but if you got a letter in the post asking for your heart to save a child's life (you're the only match, child definitely dies without your heart), would ANYONE say yes?

hairyslug

Not a hope, chances are I would take a life for my kids though but I suppose we never know how we would react in a situation like that

hopgog

hairyslug wrote: »

Not a hope, chances are I would take a life for my kids though but I suppose we never know how we would react in a situation like that

Same I would save my cat or dog over some random kid, if I could only pic one

ohnonotgmail

no. why is a childs life more important than mine?

Optimalprimerib

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But they are completely different.

One is giving your life selflessly, the greatest sacrifice. One is just not being a complete and utter scumbag, and a criminal too.

Both are completely unsavoury situations that would define you as a human being where your true nature will usurp all of your best intentions in the world.

Yes the second example is pure scum but I can only fathom what would be going through your head at the time.

Idjit

Robsweezie wrote: »

One thing that was brought up is that children should be saved first and foremost as they have more to live for and have had little life experience in comparison for those from older age groups.

But why do they have more to live for? Not trying to sound like I have no feelings or anything but surely the older person with the fully developed life and wider range of developed relationships should be considered more valuable?

The death of a child is horribly tragic of course because they don't get the chance to live a full life...but I could never understood why that made them more worth saving. Adults have had more time to develop their lives and so they have more to lose if they die.

As someone whose children have died in an accident, I would never ever want someone else to have to go through the pain of that. However, my own family have been through so much already that I wouldn't want to put them through any more and I would choose my family over someone else's - rather than my life over a child's.

In saying that, my guess is that I would risk my life for another person, child or not, if there was some chance they could be saved. The extent of that risk though I couldn't say until the situation was presented to me.

Magico Gonzalez

Honestly no, I stick with the missus and look after my own family at all costs. I couldn't abandon my family for the benefit of another family.

Whether I should or not is another question, but I know I wouldn't. Unknown kid or any member of my family? Mine win out, every time. My family are more important to me than strangers, I think that's natural.

evo2000

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Honestly no, I stick with the missus and look after my own family at all costs. I couldn't abandon my family for the benefit of another family.

Whether I should or not is another question, but I know I wouldn't. Unknown kid or any member of my family? Mine win out, every time. My family are more important to me than strangers, I think that's natural.

God forbid.. but if it was someone belong to you tho, would you rather the stranger do nothing?

magicmushroom

No.
Harsh but true - if I could save them and also keep my own life then of course I would do that but I would not give my life for a stranger, no.

Magico Gonzalez

evo2000 wrote: »

God forbid.. but if it was someone belong to you tho, would you rather the stranger do nothing?

What you are asking is another version of the same question...who do I prefer dies, my own or the stranger. In this case the stranger becomes the person with the power to make the decision.

It would be wrong of me to expect them to do anything but save their own, I imagine i would resent them of course.

If there was a way for me to ensure my kid lives and the stranger dies? I'll save my kid. If my kid dies and the stranger lives, I'd be bitterly resentful, I don't see how I couldn't be but I would understand that somehow I would have to come to accept it which would be so painful as to be almost impossible...I guess.

FindersKeepers

Straight away I voted yes.
But reading over your replies made me think of my own child and her loss if I died.
Some of these replies are gas though, giving me a right oul giggle today
Toughie though I'm still gonna stick with my gut and say YES with the hope that an adult would do the same for my little one!

Noobascious

All this child protection waffle is just that. The majority of people are greedy and evil. Me this my that stranger this stranger that. It's a kid we are talking about.

BrokenArrows

If it was certain death for me if i saved the child then no i wouldn't.

If i was in a scenario where my life was in danger but not certain death then I'd probably give it a go.

ALiasEX

strobe wrote: »

Are they hot?

of course they all have lovely bottoms

rocky911

Ye I would but then again I dont have a family but if was different circumstances prob not.

dont bother

no i wouldnt. i had to think about it though, and decided NO.
we dont know what this child is going to turn out to be... could be the next hitler, so i dont want to be the one who saved hitler and cause misery down the line to millions, now do i?

ah no, i dont think you can accurately answer, unless in the situation really.

it's all a bit... live-leak for my liking

Areyouwell

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

This place is so edgy.

Or maybe just honest.

seamus

I honestly don't know.

Would I risk taking a bullet? Yeah probably. I'm bigger and far more likely to survive being shot than a child. If I knew I was definitely going to die? I don't know. You'd have to be there, right?

anncoates

seamus wrote: »

You'd have to be there, right?

No, It's AH.

Experience just provides an unwanted dilution of moral clarity.

DarkJager

If it meant I would die for certain then no, I wouldn't. Why would I essentially end my own life to save someone who is of no relevance to me?

On the flip side, I would certainly attempt to save them if I could be sure that there was something nearby that would minimise the risk to myself and the child (e.g a life ring available if child was drowning or an Ak47 if said child was being threatened by a bunch of guys with knives )

NachoBusiness

[Deleted User] wrote: »

..my guess is that I would risk my life for another person, child or not, if there was some chance they could be saved. The extent of that risk though I couldn't say until the situation was presented to me.

Okay, well let's put it to the test (you must reply to this post within 15 seconds of reading it for it to work):

You're in Debenhams. You're travelling up the escalator when you notice a madman dangling a child over the glass partition where the roof top cafe is (lovely grub up there actually, quite pricey though). His grip is getting looser and looser, the decent is imminent. You look down and it's certain death for anyone that happened to venture over and even though the trajectory of their fall would mean that they would hurtle right past you.. at their closest point that would still be five to six feet away and so merely grabbing them would not be an option open to you.

So, there is only one thing for it: you're gonna have to jump. This way, if you grab them tightly enough.. they'll be fine. You however, would not, and would instantly meet your demise, in the Men's socks section. So, would you do it? Would you jump? Answer. . now!

I myself wouldn't have to perish as I could in fact save the life of the child without having to put my own life at risk. You see, as a young boy I used to watch a lot of Remington Steele, repeatedly and for those not au fait with that particular detective series, scrapes like the one outlined here would be of no stranger to old Remmington. You see, what he would do is quickly access a situation and the local vacinity and then proceed to use, what most people would assume to be useless elements of the surrounding area, and use them to his advantage . Which is, coincidentally, precisely what I would do also.

You see, as you go up the escalator from the 1st floor in Debenhams, you might have noticed there are some floating advertising hoardings in the air, but to a trained eye these hoardings are not actually floating at all. Nope, they are in fact suspended from the ceiling and so naturally I would have subconsciously clocked these on the way up, and then on subsequently witnessing the child in flight, I would merely have, without thought of self perseveration, just flung myself at them with enough force to take us both into one of those after shave hoardings and used our combined body weight to swing the wee lad or lassie up into the bedding dept. Obviously not something every man would have in his arsenal, but a childhood spent indoors watching american tv shows while others kids are out wasting their time playing football and kiss chasing, does eventually have to have it's payoffs.

Junkyard Tom

Robsweezie wrote: »

as in saving a child being the ''right'' and correct thing to do [...] as opposed to doing nothing which could be seen as ''selfish'' by some.

Which is to say it has nothing at all to do with Political Correctness.

Baron Kurtz

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Make sure you give that kid the aul twenty questions before deciding, to be sure. Wouldn't want to make a mistake and end up accidentally not saving some mansion-raised sprog.

Baron Kurtz

hopgog wrote: »

You can usually tell the scum by looking at them. Same if they where fat I wouldn't bother trying either.

Knacker kids always have scratches/scabs on their noses. Fact:)

folamh

sure why not *munches crisps in a blasé manner*

Irishcrx

It's a tough one , Ideally if I could try save the child without killing myself then yes of course. But otherwise maybe not , I have a child who depends me...

If it was him , then of course I would..

Lau2976

Tbh I probably would. Purely based in the fact that kids don't have the same resilience physically as on adult. I'm more likely to make it through. But certain death? Idk.

I wouldn't hesitate for a second to save an adult I lived if it meant sacrificing a child though. It's selfish as **** but I'm not trying to me Theresa here. I'm trying to live my life in the best way I possibly can.