|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:49 pm
The woman can produce more children, so it is more logical to save the breeder, so that he would give birth to new life forms.
The child was just a subling, that can be replaced by another with the wife. It's more logical to save the woman. Also finding a new soul mate would be far more hard, than creating a new baby.
Ofcourse there is a possibility the female subject would be unsatisfied with their babies fate, which could leave to depression and in end suicide. But the probabiliy of that happening is pretty low.
Answer: Choose the wife.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:49 am
I'd probably save the kid. Only because the kid would have a whole life ahead of him/her and I think that my significant other would want the kid to be the one saved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:40 am
This is one that's difficult for someone like me to answer, because first I'd have to ask myself "Why would I even have a child?" And even barring my childfree status, I'd have to say I agree with smoovegeek; I'd be doing my damnedest to save both of them. It's highly unlikely that there'd be only one solution, which has already been said.
In the case that there was only one solution, given my personal opinion of children, I'd probably save the significant other. It's a horrid thing to say, I'm sure, but it's the truth -- I lack the maternal instincts that most women have, and so the life of a single mother is definitely not the life for me. A child wouldn't 'light up my life' the way it would for some, but having my significant other with me would have a better chance of doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:57 pm
Stark of War Now, this may not count as philosophy, but it makes for good discussion. If this does not fit well enough with the theme of the guild, I'd be more than happy to ask a Mod to remove it myself. Of course, I'm sure you'll all do that before I get a chance, so I won't worry for now.
Anyway, here's the situation:
You are married, and you have one child. The child is young; age 1-4, perhaps a bit older. The time that you and your significant other have been together is irrelevant; you love them, they love you. You fight, but only as much as any couple. And, of course, you love your child.
Then, tragedy. It does not matter how it happened, but the two are critically injured. They can be saved, and they will make a full recovery. However, you can save only one.
The reason? Insufficient funds on your part; both need a specific organ replaced and there is but one that matches; the hospital is overworked and only has enough staff for one. You choose the circumstance, as I do not think it important.
Now, which do you choose?
On one hand, there is the child. A new life, with endless possibilities.
On the other, your love. Your "soul mate."
Which do you save? The child has no life, no memories, nothing. Your lover has a life, loved ones, memories, a childhood. Something as blank as a baby, while it is human, still isn't as valuable as an adult human's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 7:22 pm
I disagree with "logic" in this case and say that my wife's life would have less value to live because she has lived longer. Letting the child die because we can just "make" another one is absurd to me.
ps: This is a choice that is hypothetically possible.
And I thought a harder decision would have been if at a hospital you had to anonymously choose one lives and one dies between a young relative (that you haven't met and never will) or an old friend, but I guess that many here would disagree with me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
