MOMania

By ALEXIS

October 9, 2007 7:59 AM | Link to this

Here is an idea for everyone to consider,How about we all try to save our country?Its really quite simple,we all just move to impeach Bush for all his lies,and crimes of murdering innocent people in his fight to win his daddy’s war.You can save your spouse and children.

By Joe

October 9, 2007 8:02 AM | Link to this

You didn’t get the scenario quite right. In Neal’s scenario you can save one, but not both. Neal also applies his logic to the husband as well in saying that his primary responsibility is to his wife.

For those of us that are Christians, the Bible is quite clear on this issue. See Ephesians 5 as one example. As terrible a decision as this would be, you have to save your spouse.

I think a more likely application of this lesson is when your spouse and child have a disagreement. In order for the family to function properly, you have to take the side of the spouse, at least until you and your spouse can discuss the matter privately. Of course, this assumes that your spouse is not abusing your kid.

By GeezGuys

October 9, 2007 8:06 AM | Link to this

I would hope most good husbands would say they’d want their wife to save the child. A grown man wanting a lifeboat seat before a kid…not a pretty picture. Belinda is right in a Darwinism type way. The adult male has a better chance to take care of himself.

It’ll be interesting to see what comments pop up. I’d guess more men would think this question over, while women will answer quickly.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

I’m a man, and I’ll answer quickly: save your spouse, a productive member of society. Then save the kid, if possible.

By SHENIKA

October 9, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this

I BE SAVIN MY BABY, WHO CARE BOUT DA BABY DADDY HE BE RUNNIN ROUND WIF ALL HE GIRLFRINS ANYHOW AN ALL DA TIME HIGH ON SOM KINDA DOPE

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 8:21 AM | Link to this

Difficult question.

On the one hand, you have the love of my life. The very person that got me through so many dark days growing up, before I ever even met her. The very one that I have a sworn duty to protect at all costs.

On the other hand, you have someone that more than likely CANNOT save themselves. Also one I have a sworn duty to protect at all costs.

If I choose T, together we have to deal with the repercussions of that decision. It could tear us apart, or it could make us far stronger. HOPEFULLY it will make us stronger.

If I choose the kid, I will destroy myself in the process. More than likely I would become useless to anyone, especially the kid, in my grief. I honestly don’t know how long it would take me to come out of it and be useful again, if ever.

Looking at THE Father: He let his Only Son die so that humans, His Image Bearers, could live. Seems to me to indicate that we should sacrifice the child. Of course, this assumes that the husband/father cannot die, or that his death would be futile in the situation at hand. Obviously, with Christ as the model, the husband should first look to see if his own death can save BOTH wife AND child.

By Katie

October 9, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

My Husband. I made a commitment to him and he comes first.

By RJ

October 9, 2007 8:27 AM | Link to this

This is an no-brainer for me. I hope it would also be for my husband. I would save my kids first because they are incapable of saving themselves in any way.

By SHENIKA

October 9, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

RJ:AMENS SISTA DA BABY ALWAYS BE FIRST AN KATIE YOU IS CRAZEE GIRLFRIN DAT BABY DADDY DON CARE BOUT YOU

By Kerry

October 9, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this

I can’t imagine a situation in which my husband wouldn’t be able to save himself. And even if he couldn’t he would rather I save our daughter than try to save him. And I feel the same. If my husband had to choose between saving me or our child, I would want him to rescue her. I love my husband, but it almost brings me to tears to even think about just letting something happen to her to save him. He comes first in many areas of our lives. I hate questions like this. What possible situation could there be in which this scenario would play out?

By ALEXIS

October 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this

Shenika:Please,You are embarrising me.If you going to comment on a blog,please stay with your own people.

By Mommy first

October 9, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

As for me, I know my husband without a doubt would refuse to be salvaged if I can save my kid. It would be no contest for him. He would sacrifice himself in a heartbeat. I would have no choice in the matter. Some of us can’t have more kids, by the way.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

A lot of folks seem to be inventing an escape clause: “My spouse can probably save himself/herself.” That’s not part of the deal.

One or the other is GUARANTEED to die without your action. Which is it?

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this

And asking what your spouse would choose is likewise ducking the issue: it’s letting someone else decide for you, rather than facing the choice yourself.

By mefirstgeneration

October 9, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

Another bad response from Neal Boortz. A parent’s responsibility would be to save their child. Any parent who thinks otherwise is wrong. The response, “You can always have more children” is the same as “You can always remarry”.

But it’s not the same spouse? Really? It’s not the same children, either. But what difference does it make? Everybody is disposable in our society, so save yourself first. You can always get more stuff. And that’s what it’s all about anyway, right? Who has the most stuff, including kids or a spouse.

By Jesse's Girl

October 9, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

Wow! Talk about a situation you never want to find yourself in. Guilt would be a constant companion regardless of the choice you make here. Mr Jesse comes before our children. I love him more…and considering the fact that I would die for my kids, that should give you an idea of where he is in my life and in my heart. Though I am sure some of you will tsk tsk for citing the Bible as a reason for my decision…it is the reason nonetheless. God/Jesus, Mr Jesse, children. Unless I wake up to find myself in a “SAW” movie, I cannot imagine when I would have to face this horrid choice.

By AmazonRed

October 9, 2007 9:10 AM | Link to this

I’m not married nor do I have kids, but I’d chose to save my child. I’d have a commitment to my husband, but my bigger commitment is to my kid.

By SHENIKA

October 9, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

ANOMYNOUS IM WIT YOU IF ONE GWAN DIE LET IT BE DA BABY DADDY HE AINT NO GOOD

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

MeFirst: You raise a good point about the validity of Boortz’s reasoning… but what’s yours?

True, saying “You can always have more kids” is not a good enough reason to choose your spouse. But what’s YOUR reason for saying parents should always choose to save the kid, and “anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong?”

By Reluctant

October 9, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

I know if it were reversed, if my husband could only save me or our children, I would definately want him to save the children; and I know my husband feels the same way. Help those that cannot help themselves.

By the way, I am a Christian, and Ephesians 5 (and other parts of the Bible) give instructions on how to live as husband and wife - it tells us to be subordinate to each other and love each other - it doesn’t say in a life or death situation you have to choose your spouse.

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

To those who ponder upon when you might face such a situation:

It is possible in nearly any catastrophe. (Car wreck, plane crash, ship sinking, train wreck, tornado, hurricane, earthquake, volcano, that type of thing. More common than one might expect.)

It is also possible in certain seige-type scenarios, some of which are more common than others. Certain bank robberies and home invasion robberies come to mind.

Also, in an NBC attack, this could come into play.

Depending upon exactly how adventurous your family is, this could come into play while hiking. I have vivid memories of nearly falling off the side of a mountain one time while hiking. I can easily see a mother and child making the same mistake I did on that trail.

Most likely scenarios though are probably going to be your car crashes, tornadoes, and possibly hiking-type accidents.

By SM

October 9, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this

I think that this is a very tough decision to make. I would choose my husband. My reason for this is my child would not have to know life missing a parent. I think it would be harder for the child to miss us than for us to miss the child. My first answer was to save the child but, after thinking about it I decided on my husband.

By JJ

October 9, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

Since I am a single mom, I would save the kid.

Alexis Please go start your own Bush-bashing blog, and quit trying to stir politics up in the MOM blog.

SHENIKA Either learn the english language, or go start your own “Ebonics” blog. And for god’s sake turn the caps key off.

By Dad243

October 9, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

What is wrong with you people? You save your child! I would die for my child right now, without a second thought if it would preserve his life. My wife would do the same. My wife and I have lived a combined 70 years, we’ve known highs and lows and experienced life, our child has only lived 3 years. I tell you now i would DIVORCE my wife if she let my child die in order to save me.

Some of you who would save your spouse, because you can have more children are selfish children yourself. Being a parent comes with great responsibility and sacrifice, and if you cannot accept that or if you can’t make tough decisions, maybe you shouldn’t be a parent in the first place.

By Cat Mom

October 9, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

I’d save my cat.

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

My most basic line of thought on this topic is this:

NO ONE comes between me and my wife. NO ONE.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Dad243: So, what’s your reasoning for your decision? Why do you choose your child over your spouse?

There’s gotta be more to your answer than just saying “Anyone who disagrees with me is crazy/evil/stupid.”

By Jennifer

October 9, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

I’d save my child, without a doubt. My husband would never, ever forgive me for saving him instead of our child and I wouldn’t forgive him if he saved me instead of our child, either. I love my husband with all my heart but I’m a “Mama Bear” and my natural reaction would be to save my kids.

What a depressing topic!!

By Jesse's Girl

October 9, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

@Dad243……are you seriously saying that my choice would not be a tough one? Of course it would be heart wrenching…but it is MY choice. That doesn’t make it better or worse than your’s, just MINE.

By V for Vendetta

October 9, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

What a morbid topic, but one with an easy answer:

You save the children, or course.

Your children are your legacy, they are your blood. They carry on the DNA that you and your spouse joined. Animals ferociously defend their young.

Anyone who would save their spouse on the grounds of religion — that’s fine. The world doesn’t need your genetics carrying on anyway.

I would sacrifice ANYTHING for my kids, whether it’s my spouse’s life or my own. Any good parent would (and should) do the same. I wouldn’t even think about it.

By been there

October 9, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Kinda sorta been there. My husband and toddler were riding a horse, when the horse got spooked and threw them. Both of them were laying on the ground knocked out. I looked to see if my husband was breathing, then I immediately picked up my baby. Didn’t have time to think.

By mefirstgeneration

October 9, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

My “reasoning” is simple, a parent’s job is to protect their child, even at the cost of one’s own life. Otherwise you would be a worthless parent in every form imaginable. Dad243 is correct.

“This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”

or we could modify it to suit our tastes:

“This is my suggestion, try to love one another really, really hard, but if things get tough and you have to decide on which person to throw away, throw away the one you want because you can always get another one and wouldn’t that be sweet?”

Our society has become a bunch of Jack Handys.

By JJ

October 9, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this

Dad243 I’m with you, I would save MY kid, even if it meant my own death.

So I guess the question should be, would you save another adult, or a child? I would choose to save the life of a child.

By Jesse's Girl

October 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

See you all later…not in the mood for the ill mannered if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you’re-genetically-inferior vitriol. Honestly people…time for a new rebuttal

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

I’ll admit that I am kinda surprised that so many would pick their spouse over their child. Yes, I love my husband more than life itself. We have been married 13 years and have known each other for 16 (almost half my life). I feel that he is my soul mate and can’t imagine my life without him! As a matter of fact, I love him so much that if something ever happened to him I cannot foresee myself remarrying.

It would be such a tragedy to find myself in that situation. But, my children are dependent on me (and my husband) to protect them. It is my duty. My husband and I both feel that our children are most important in a life and death situation. We nurture our relationship and stick up for each other in every other way. I certainly place my husband before anyone else in our daily lives, but in the scenario mentioned, my kids come first.

By SHENIKA

October 9, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

HAYY JJ WHY YOU BE TALKIN TO ME BOUT EBONICS DIS SPOSE TO BE BOUT SAVIN YO BABY OR DA BABY DADDY YOU MUS BE CRAZEE

By Dad243

October 9, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

Anonymous, you must be dense. What part of we have already lived and experienced life, did you interpret as “if you disagree with me you are crazy?”

Read first then respond.

It’s seriously obvious some of you Poster’s don’t have children. I think most who opt to save their spouse are emotionally weak and unable to stand on their own, therefore they choose to save thier crutch then “man-up” and stand on their own.

Jesse’s Girl, please don’t reproduce anymore. If you don’t have the maternal instinct to save your children, if they are expendable to you, then they are better off not being born.

By GeezGuys

October 9, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Putting yourself in your spouse’s shoes isn’t ducking the question; it’s quite valid. Reverse the situation—either you or your child will die, who would you want your spouse to pick? Most parents would say “take the kid before me!See ya on the other side, honey.”

I think children are a shared commitment, both parents must be willing to put them first. Not in a way that means spoiling kids, in a way that means self-sacrifice to improve the lot of your child.

By meg

October 9, 2007 10:22 AM | Link to this

We’re all already saved, so it doesn’t matter. : )

By mefirstgeneration

October 9, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

“See you all later…not in the mood for the ill mannered if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you’re-genetically-inferior vitriol. Honestly people…time for a new rebuttal”

Just the type of response one would expect from a self-centered individual.

“Of course it would be heart wrenching…but it is MY choice. That doesn’t make it better or worse than your’s, just MINE.”

No, you’re missing the point. It isn’t YOUR choice, you don’t have a choice if you’re a parent. Your JOB is to protect your child. That is your “Raison D’Etre” as a parent.

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Dad243:

I’ll put what I’ve survived up against what you’ve survived any day of the week. And twice on Sundays.

I know that I CAN survive without T. The question becomes, for me, one of “choose the lesser harm”. My first post today was an honest one. If I chose the child, one parent would be dead and the other might as well be until he could get over his grief. Depending on the child’s exact age, this could be anywhere from traumatic to catastrophic.

And the question, for me, becomes - as I said - “lesser harm”. I KNOW that I will eventually be able to deal with whichever decision I make. I also KNOW that if I choose T, she will be able to look after herself until I regain my composure. Again, depending upon the exact age of the child, this may not be possible for the child.

While it gives away the ending to True Believer, read At First Sight, by Nicholas Sparks. Jeremy’s struggle highlights much of how I would react. The difference is that in Jeremy’s case, he didn’t have the power to save her. In the case of this blog, I would. Which would make the grief even worse.

By been there

October 9, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Look - I tried to tell you, but you people don’t listen. You don’t have time to stand and think. You instinctively assess the situation and patients, help who you can and who needs it worse. Glad yall weren’t anywhere around analyzing for me. You all just like to here yourself talk.

By Lynette

October 9, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Having buried a child and had a spouse walk out on me. I can tell you right now the kids will win.

Let me put it to you this way. I can always re-marry, and do a much better job in choosing thank you very much, but nothing or no one can replace my child.

Theresa This is more offensive than any other subject you have droped on us.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Dad243: Where did I get the impression that you were saying “Anyone who disagrees with me is stupid or crazy?”

Could it be, perhaps from attitudes such as “I think most who opt to save their spouse are emotionally weak and unable to stand on their own” (quoted from Dad243), among others.

Lots of hostility here, I notice. I realize it’s an emotion-charged question, but there’s no need to declare everyone who disagrees with you insane, unworthy, or a “total failure in every way imaginable.”

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

MeFirst: “It isn’t YOUR choice, you don’t have a choice if you’re a parent. Your JOB is to protect your child. That is your “Raison D’Etre” as a parent.”

According to whom? The mythical “all right-thinking people,” or a divine command? What’s the source of that directive—or is it just supposed to be “obvious”?

By JJ

October 9, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

Jeff Wait till you have kids. If you think you are in love with your wife, wait until the little ones are born. Your whole world will change, along with your priorities. Once you meet that beatiful child you and your wife produced, and look him/her in the eyes, you will know what real love is. You will lay your life down for the life of your child, no questions asked!!!!
4 more days as a single man huh?

By Cammi317

October 9, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

WOW! To those of you who would save your spouse, think about this….In the last minutes/seconds of your child’s life he or she would watch you pulling someone else to safety and leaving them to perish…. If that’s not F’d up, then I don’t know what is. Talk about a haunting. I would have to be committed because I would remember those last few seconds every minute of every day for the rest of my life!

By been there

October 9, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

JJ if you wnat to talk and flirt with Jeff, why don’t yall go to a private chat room. Geeze………

By CJP

October 9, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

I’m with Dad243- Kids 1st- always & without exception!!! If I reversed the situation and my spouse chose me I don’t know if I would ever be able to forgive him. Children are adaptable. While they will mourn the lost parent they will grow up to lead their own lives. My children ARE my life and I don’t want to be on any earth that doesn’t include them. I’d step in front of a speeding train to save my children, as would my husband.

Think of it this way- say your spouse and your child have a hereditary disease and they both needed a kidney and you are the only match (I know the chances are astronomical but we are being hypothetical here). You can’t give up both of your kidneys, so to whom are you going to donate? I can’t imagine my husband laying in a hospital bed saying, “honey, save me- not the kid”. What would yo do?

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

I’m also curious about the reason MeFirst gave in their first response:

“This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”

Powerful stuff, and an idea I agree with. But how do you get “Choose your kid over your spouse” from that commandment, exactly?

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Cammi317: And flip it around the other way… in the last few seconds of your spouse’s life, they see the same thing. Would that be any less haunting and upsetting?

If so, why? Remember, we’re not choosing between “Save your child” and “walk away laughing.” It’s a choice between saving two lives, both of them important.

By SHENIKA

October 9, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

HAYY JEFF JJ RITE YOU JUS WATE TILL YOU HAB SOME CHILREN DAY BE DA MOS PRESHUS GIFT OB ALL

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

JJ:

You don’t understand me, nor could you, based solely on internet conversation. (Well, some might - and I suspect some do - but I honestly don’t know how that happens.)

T has ALWAYS been the key to my sanity, even long before I knew her. When I was so far off the deep end that I thought I would die, she guided me back and she kept me level. I’ve always said that anyone who harmed her would TRULY come to regret that move, and I MEAN IT. I would make John Kelly from Without Remorse look like the Pope himself with what I would do to the people involved in harming her.

And I would be just as savage at destroying myself if I allowed harm to come to her that I could prevent.

“Lesser harm” theory thus indicates that it is better for a couple to lose a child than for a child to lose both parents.

THAT is the basis of my decision making on this topic. THAT is the reason NO ONE comes between me and T.

To those that say “you can never know”: You don’t know me. I train, analyze, think, and train some more so that even in the WORST of scenarios, my responses are pr-programmed and I can execute as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Will I, in the heat of the moment, choose the kid? POSSIBLY. But if I do, mark my words: What I have said about destroying myself will come to pass.

By Cammi317

October 9, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

Yes, it would be less traumatic for me, because I know that if the situation were reversed and my spouse had to choose I would die knowing my child survived.

By JJ

October 9, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

Jeff You are aboslutely correct. T was apparently created for you and you only. I understand that love. I’m just saying, as much love as you have for this woman, once a child enters the picture, your priorities will change. I never thought I could love anyone like I love my daughter. I love her so much it hurts. I love her so much I would lay my life down for her in a heartbeat, no questions asked. There is no love deeper than a parent and child. One day you will know this love, as it is a differnt love than you have with T.

Been there.. You obvioulsy are new to this blog, as Jeff and I are regulars and he has been talking about his upcoming wedding for quite some time now. We even know where he is taking his love on their honeymoon. No need for a chat room thank you. If you don’t like the blog relationship here, please feel free to visit another.

By mefirstgeneration

October 9, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Neal,

You’re having fun with this, aren’t you?

By mefirstgeneration

October 9, 2007 11:08 AM | Link to this

“Anonymous”:

“According to whom? The mythical “all right-thinking people,” or a divine command? What’s the source of that directive—or is it just supposed to be “obvious”?”

No, no, no. You’re getting all worked up. I get my direction from this dude down at the Quik Trip. He’s really smart and I can get a drink refill for only 99 cents.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Cammi: Fair enough. You, Nurse+Mother, and Jeff have all given reasons for your responses, and I thank you for it.

Most of all, I appreciate that you’ve done so without hurling insults at those who might disagree.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

MeFirst: Cool. At least that’s a reason.

What does the QT say about investment options in a bad housing market?

By kimadeen

October 9, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

I would save my child. As a matter of fact, I would bring great bodily harm to my spouse… oh wait… I’m divorced. (just a little jokey poo) Obviously, my husband is now my ex, but… I would save my child regardless. To those who are taking the time to respond to Shenika…please keep in mind that “Shenika” is a blog-comedian…thinking this topic would lend itself to that brand of “humor”.

By DG

October 9, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

For those of you that have responded: My Husband. I made a commitment to him and he comes first. — or similar type responses

Didn’t you make a commitment when you elected to have a child?

For my husband and I, this question requires no thought. The child comes first.

I am surprised by the number of people claiming they’d pick their spouse in this horrible scenario.

By DadMania

October 9, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

The child of course. The female is an adult and can take care of herself.

I would feel the same way if the situation was reversed. My child is too young to help in a crisis and I am very capable of handling an emergency.

I would be devastated to lose my child knowing someone help me instead of the kid.

By Dad243

October 9, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

YOU READ NICHOLAS SPARKS’S NOVELS?

Your’re worse off than I thought!

By Nicole

October 9, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

The question is actually WHOM would you save, fyi.

I would save my daughter and let my husband save himself.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

“Didn’t you make a commitment when you elected to have a child?”

Yes, just as you did when you got married. So the question is, which commitment comes first?

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Dad243:

This is one dude who can put a .45 round between your eyeballs WHILE reading a Sparks book and not think twice about either.

Sparks does not make one less manly or less dangerous.

In many ways, it DOES help a guy sort through things and process emotions.

By RJ

October 9, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

How incredible it is to read that so many value the commitment that they’ve made with their spouse over their responsibility to their child. How in the world does that happen?! This is truly a scary society in which we dwell!

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

To those that say it is better to let a child die than let him/her live without a parent-What do you suggest for those children who have lost a parent to cancer, car accident etc.? Do you think that you should put that child out of his/her misery to spare them the grief?

My father passed away one month after my 12th birthday. Yes, it was one of the saddest times of my life. It was a struggle to overcome my grief as I had lots of guilt. But I survived and I am a wonderfully well adjusted person. I have learned to appreciate my loved ones and I know that they can be gone in the blink of an eye. Do I wish that I had never been born or put out of my misery because my father died? Of course not! Children are more resiliant than we give them credit for.

As tough as it is, death is a part of life.

By Dad243

October 9, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

Question: If you have a .45 in one hand and “A Walk to Remember” in the other, exactly who is painting your toenails?

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Nurse&Mother: Remember, it’s not a choice between “let a child die rather than let him live without a parent.” It’s save one person OR save another; either way, someone is going to die. By saving the child, you kill the parent.

Your analogy about putting orphans out of their misery doesn’t really apply here.

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

I can’t imagine my small helpless child looking at me as I chose my spouse. I agree with the poster (Cammi?) who said that image would haunt them for the rest of their life.

Anonymous the difference in looking in my husband’s eyes and in looking in my child’s eyes is that my husband wouldn’t look at me that way. He would understand and expect that I would save my child.

By Jonny

October 9, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

I’d grab my dog and go on a nice and peaceful vacation. Somewhere with no children or nags around.

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 12:16 PM | Link to this

Anonymous I am merely responding to a poster who said that it would be too detrimental to the child if you saved him/her but let the parent die.(paraphrasing) That dialogue is only aimed at that poster (sorry I can’t remember who posted it).

By DB

October 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

We’ve actually discussed this, in passing. It wouldn’t matter — if I saved my husband instead of my child, my husband would kill me, anyway! He and I both consider that we have had our chance, had a wonderful life, and now it’s our children’s turn at a full life. To live at the cost of our child’s life would be hell on earth.

Besides, my husband carries more insurance ;-)

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this

Dad243:

Ha ha.

We can debate our respective manliness at another time. My point being that Sparks himself is a MAN. I find his male characters to be EXTREMELY easy to relate to. I would go so far as to say that MOST Southern Men would.

By Anonymous

October 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

So it’s based on who would understand your decision better?

In that case, you should save a drowning pet before you save your husband too—because the dog couldn’t understand your decision, and your husband could.

I don’t see how that’s the deciding factor.

By whoever

October 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

watch out DAD243…

Jeff’s got a gun and The Notebook

Run for your life!

Save your spouse, no wait, your child…no wait, your spouse…

By Jennifer

October 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

I was born with a uterus and Nicholas Sparks books are enough to gag ME. You may as well choose a paperback with an airbrushed picture of Fabio on it.

Dad243, I think you are my husband.

Unless you actually have a child, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on in this discussion. I love my husband and I’m completely committed to him, but there is a fierce biological bond between me and our children that will trump anything.

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Nurse:

It was I who posted that, maybe some others.

Read my reasoning though, and you’ll realize that the “orphan argument” does not apply.

Indeed, in my own case, it would be FAR harder on my kid if I chose him than if he had lost both parents. It would be a self imposed protracted death sentence on my own part. And my child would watch me destroy myself before finally ending it.

No. In MY case - I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself - “Lesser harm” indicates that I MUST save T. Otherwise, my child will live through the trauma of watching his mother die, then live through the nightmare of nightmares of watching his father destroy himself beyond recognition before finally ending it.

I pray daily that I am never forced into this situation. Honestly, being placed in a situation where T’s life is at stake IS my single greatest fear, and has been for YEARS.

By been there

October 9, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this

Another sad commentary about women who put the men in the lives - whether it be husband 1, 2, 3 or live in boyfriend - over their children. When the husband beats her or hurts the kids, all she can say is “But I love him.” REAL classy.

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this

Jennifer:

I think that is what Theresa was getting at.

I know my response.

I’m also pretty sure that if T was forced to choose, she would choose our child.

And I believe that is the difference Theresa was asking about.

Women, having a more nurturing/ caring instinct, would NATURALLY save the child.

Men, having more of a protector instinct, would NATURALLY save the wife. I might go so far as to say that because of the protector instinct, men would more likely hesitate and/ or second guess themselves quite often in the aftermath.

By DB

October 9, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Hey, Jeff! There’s a saying: “Everyone is a perfect parent until they have children.” Those of us who have lived through almost 20 years of child-rearing just smile (if we don’t break out in hysterical laughter) when those who have not yet entered the wonderful world of parenting begin to make pronouncements on what they think they will do when they are parents. No battle plan survives its first encounter with the enemy, and no one knows what kind of parent they will be until they are faced with a lifetime of 365/24/7 decisions and judgements and responsibility for another human being. We all went through it — and I think we were all shocked at the fundamental, gut-level change that having a child makes in your life, whether you are a man or a woman.

I wish you and T. all the best this weekend as you start on a new phase of your life together, and hope you have a wonderfully memorable honeymoon. :-) New beginnings are always lovely things!

By GeezGuys

October 9, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

I think a drowning husband wouldn’t understand you saving a pet over him. But I bet he’d understand you saving a child over him. Comprehension doesn’t equal understanding, in the sense that you can get why someone is choosing an action. I love my pets. They still don’t trump human life. Except maybe compared to a couple of ex-bosses, lawyers in general, or Enron executives.

I don’t have kids. But I can still understand that most parents are willing to sacrifice themselves for their offspring. If I have a choice between saving a child, or saving that child’s parent, I’d pick the child every time.

For that matter, I hope I would accept if it came down to someone saving me or anyone’s kid, they’d save the kid. Not that I really know what I’d do in such a situation. I just hope I’d have the huevos, if I had any choice.

By Fulton County Mom

October 9, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

I have heard variations of this question for years. Truthfully it depends on the cultural norm as to what the ‘acceptable’ answer is going to be. Here in the US there is an over emphasis on the child (China puts it on the eldery, France and England on the spouse, India on the Mother, etc)….so of course the majority of the board thinks that saving your spouse is ‘wrong’.

The over emphasis on the child is KILLING America not saving it. Men especially are devalued, which in turn is leading to futher breakdown of the family in general

From the comments above the majority of women are saving their kids and the majority of men are saving the spouse. Go figure!

Women if you are putting the children before the marriage in this situation then you are doing it in the day to day ones. Your job is to be the other half of who/what God created. (Husbands, your job is the same).

By Cammi

October 9, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

I can’t help but thinking about that movie, The Good Son when the mother had to choose between saving her nephew and her demonic son….

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this

Jeff are you also anonymous? Just curious. I will be interested to see if your opinion changes if/when you and T have children.

Anyway, I can’t and won’t begin to understand some posters today. I leave the post scratching my head. I am very surprised at a few of the regulars in which I often times share the same opinion.

Good points Been there (12:33 post) and DB (12:40 post)

RJ This is the same society that doesn’t value the elderly either. Same principal. We don’t care about the weak and/or vulnerable. And yes this says alot about our society. Very sad.

By Just me

October 9, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

This whole scenario is simply a “what if” situation. I have no idea how I’d react if faced with choosing. I suppose my instincts would take over and I would have no say at that point. I don’t think anyone can map a plan out for a “what if” scenario like this one. Your mind will say one thing but you’ll never control those instincts.

By Lauryn

October 9, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

I think it is interesting that some of the Christianists on this post are quoting the Bible and saying that the spouse must be saved over the child. However, if it comes down to saving a mother over her unborn fetus they will choose the fetus everytime. I wonder how they reconcile that. Anyway, no doubt in my mind I would save my child over my husband. If it came down to such a terrible painful decision then there is no question in my mind that I would save the child. I would expect my husband to do the same for me. But to me there is a bid difference between an unborn fetus and a thriving full-fleged human being. It is interesting that Christianists put more value on an unborn child than a one already living outside the womb. But they always do. And like most of Boortz’s ideas and topics, this one is ridiculous. I don’t giveashit what he or the Bible says. And any man who has been divorced can’t argue to me that he values his wife when he has a history of throwing them away. He’s a hypocrite!

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

Ya’ll have a great day.

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this

Hi ya’all— I could not help to comment on this topic. It depends who is nice to me will be the one that gets saved!! Neal is right you can always have more Children!!! We can clone children now a days. they are very much replacable. Just like Chewing gum!

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

I would save my pet Guinea Pig Sofia Lynn Flowchowski first!! I love my little piggy

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

I Hope to God Bill Clinton would save Chelsea over that WITCH of A B++++ Hillary

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this

I’d save my own boutie first of all— Especially if the house was on fire. I am so scared of fire.

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

FCM I think there is a big difference in putting your child first in a life/death situation versus everyday. I value my husband tremendously (refer to my 10:13 post-I won’t rehash it).

I shouldn’t take other’s opinions personally, but I take offense to your generalizations that just because a parent chooses a child over the spouse if a life/death situation that one does not put their spouse first on a day to day basis (or devalues the spouse). Like I said read my first post. BTW my marriage is still going strong at 13 years. I think that speaks volumes. Good day!

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

It is GOD WIll Laura to save your husband and to put him first. That is a mortal sin~!

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

FCM:

Just because I know this person happens to live in Fulton County and is a mom, and your last post reminds me of her:

You wouldn’t happen to be an author, would ya?

Your last post sounded EERILY like a certain Fulton County-based mom I read!

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

Nurse and Mother — 13 years is nothing— come back and talk to the choir when you have logged in 40 years honey. You are wrong for ditching your husband!

By Jesse's Girl

October 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

I whole heartedly agree FCM. I simply have no patience today to intelligently debate my view with some of these posters…so I bowed out:) My opinion on this is exactly that…my opinion. I put my husband first in ALL that I do in my family life. I don’t see that being too terribly different in other aspects. I am of the particular opinion that it is a wife’s duty….as it is the husdand’s…to put her spouse first. Thats first in everything. I know that isn’t a very popular view point in society today. But I’ve never cottoned to popularity anyway. God’s first gift to me….after of course His Son…was my husband. My husband comes first…and I with him. That does not mean I value my children any less than the rest of you. I simply have a different perspective. And Lauryn….please do not make the mistake of thinking all Christians make sweeping judgements on abortion. For me, the subject is highly faceted. One that needs to be examined on an idividual basis. Just as this subject does.

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

Jesse’s Girl— You are absolutly the most sane person on her today. I agree with you Whole heartly. Jesse’s Girl for President

wooo hoo

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this

I would also save my kitty cat Mr. Bonasious Bo over my retarted kids.

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 2:02 PM | Link to this

I’d save my charmin toliet paper— over my son Kinney. That boy loves the Gonja cigareets a little to much. That boy always has the munchies. My grocery bill is much too high.

By Leigh

October 9, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

COMMITTMENT TO and RESPONSIBILITY FOR…. are two different situations entirely and it’s a waste of time (apparently a lot of time) to compare them. It was just Boortz trying to stir up some phone calls, and it was just as useless a topic when I heard him say it on the air.

By No brainer

October 9, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

I’d be able to choose if Tamika were my child or spouse.

By Jesse's Girl

October 9, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Thanks Tamika…have fun with my credibililty:) You do however have a beautiful way of reminding everyone to get back to work…its just a blog. Have a great day.

By hellooooo

October 9, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this

I’m sure someone along the way may have already pointed this out in some fashion; I did not have time to read them all.

As I was told by my parents many many years ago, “Your spouse is given to you for life [by God’s grace]; your children are given to you for a time.”

Sticking to the exact parameter of the question that is, to save ONLY one OR the other … instinctively, I’d want to save my child, especially if it were a very young child. Biblically, I think I’d have to save my husband, were I able to do so.

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

Tamika Casey/richard whoever you are- How long have you been married? Or would your baby daddy even marry you? If you are scoffing at my 13 years do you think that I should have become engaged before conception or in utero? I suppose a couple has to start somewhere? I am not saying that I have more experience as a married couple than a couple married for 40 years. My point is that so far we have stayed together and show no signs of stopping. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You guys have been successful in bringing out the worst in me today. I keep my religion to myself and don’t shove it in other’s faces, but some of you can’t help yourself. The Episcopal Church loves you no matter what you believe, just as a parent loves his child unconditionally. It is for these reasons that some people are turned off from religion.

By Jennifer

October 9, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

I figure if God wanted me to save my husband he wouldn’t have put us in such a predicament. Many people are throwing in the Biblical references but that is not a factor to me.

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this

Nurse:

Once again, I’m not going to try to speak for anyone else here. I’ll speak only for myself:

When dealing with issues with the family, and MY family (re: me, T, and any kids we have) in particular, I base my thinking around two things: what the Bible has taught me, and what my life has taught me. In areas where the two conflict, I try to go with the Bible. (not always successful!)

Because my thought processes for decision making in regards to the family are based on this, for me it MUST be mentioned in a case such as this where a conflict exists and a decision must be made.

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Nurse mom—

Sounds like after 13 years you would let your man hang out and dry. Your realtionship is still in the infancy stage of life. If you would choose to let your husband burn to death—Your marriage will not last much longer. When your relationship hits the adult years is when you will find it hardest. So sweety pie— You should not be saying you would let your husband die!!!

By been there

October 9, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

Nurse/Mother: In case you haven’t noticed, this isn’t a blog, its a place for each person to rave on and on about themselves and just totally diss whatever you have to say. Don’t let it get you down. They are just afraid of religion. Afraid it might be right.

By Tamika

October 9, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Nurse Mom— you need to do the Shalongala Shalongalo with your husband tonight and take better care of him! Let him see your boobs for once! And drink some Sake!!

By AmazonRed

October 9, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this

Jeff, I read and respect your opinion but you might need to look into counseling for co-dependency. Yikes.

By CRB

October 9, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this

I think this question has different perspectives.

If a wife were having to choose between a drowning husband and a drowning child…the husband is going to rightfully tell her, “Take the baby first!”

But if a husband is having to decide, its going to be much tougher on him. Honestly…a husband’s primary responsibility is to look out for his family. He’s not going to want to fail either the mother or the child.

My wife and I are on the same page though…our daughters come first.

By DB

October 9, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Whooeee — a lot of generalizations going on, here!

My thought is this: If it were ME, and my husband had a choice between saving me and my child, there is no hesitation whatsoever, other than a pang of regret: Save my child. If you save my child, I will, in a small way, live forever.

I have been married to the same man for over 25 years. We dated 6 years before that, so I have over 30 years invested in this wonderful, incredible man. If I had to choose to drag my husband or my son or daughter out of a burning car, it would kill me — but my children have a lifetime ahead of them. I also know that neither my husband nor I could live with any other choice.

It’s a blog, folks — it’s not a policy-setting roundtable! Surely we can exchange views on this without ripping opposing views to shreds? I find it interesting that others have different opinions, but their opinions certainly do not sway or threaten my own views!

By Lisey P.

October 9, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this

For those of you who don’t get it: Shenika is a white person posting as a black person, trying to get a laugh. No black person writes like that. Grow up.

By Jesse's Girl

October 9, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

Yeah…I think we got that after reading the first syllable. Not even Dave Chappell talks like that. Even his Rick James impression is less trite.

By Becky

October 9, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

I would save my child first..No question about it..As others have said, I love my husband, but for both of us, it’s a no brainer..He would choose the child first. If my husband chose me, he knows that I would neer forgive him for not saving my child & vice versa..

By JJ

October 9, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this

Yes, and she’s hitting other blogs as well…….go check out the Halloween candy blog……

By michelle

October 9, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this

SM has clearly never lost a child. I can speak from the experience of having lost my father as a child and as a parent who lost an infant…outliving one of your children is far worse than losing a parent.

It is the worse thing you can imagine and no one should ever have to live through it.

I would save my children because when I decided to have children, part of the implicit social contract there is that I am responsible for their health and safety entirely until they are able to take care of themselves. While I am an adjunct to my husband’s health and safety, it is ultimately his primary responsiblity (just as my health and safety are ultimately up to me) and not mine.

Once my children are young adults, they can begin to shoulder the burden for themselves.

By Casey

October 9, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

ALEXIS, I feel sorry for you that you seem forced to look at life through a political lens. So sorry for your pitiful life.

By nurse&mother

October 9, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Tamika Don’t worry. I’ve got this bull by the horns. LOL. FYI my hubbie came home midmorning today (a little unexpected) and I fixed him right up. I would say “afternoon delight” but it was still morning. But thanks for your concern:)

BTW, he was reading over my shoulder as I was blogging and he too agreed with me.

You still didn’t answer my question. How many years have you been married? Or did your baby daddy not want to marry you?

By Becky

October 9, 2007 4:19 PM | Link to this

michelle & lynette, I am so sorry for your loss..I have never lost a child, but my nephew (who is like a son) lost a child at 3 weeks old. That is a very sad thing to go through.

By Jane

October 9, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

Jeff: provided I remember correctly—you are engaged and the wedding is roughly 5 days away—so the comment that NO One comes between you and your wife—does not apply as there is not a child as yet.

As for me, the children are grown and have their own to provide for so I would save my husband. When they were younger—I would have chosen to save my children—we both knew/know this.

Our children mean alot to us and we are proud of them however, it truly depends on the point of time you are currently in your life what your viewpoint of this topic will be.

By FCM

October 9, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this

nurse&mother: I am not out to change who you would pick. My generalization may offend but I state them from close observations of many women who put their children first….You may well not fit that pattern, my hat is off to you then.

Lauryn: My ex flat out told me that if in the room it was me or the infant I was to LIVE. He would sign to terminate in a heartbeat. Plus we are both Christians.

Jeff: Probably not who you are thinking. I have written in a few periodicals, some work that has been read into congressional record, and small pieces of my research are in other works. I have a few other irons in the fire on larger things.

JJ: Alexis managed to work Bush in every blog I saw her on for the last week…..and its AMAZING the lengths she goes to get him warped in the topic….I now skip anything with her name (or Keith’s) on it….I bet they do the same with me.

michelle- I did indeed lose a baby. Doesn’t change my view.

By Cammi317

October 9, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this

I think chosing to save a mother’s life during childbirth is a totally different scenario. That child has yet to breathe air and it makes more logical sense to save the mother, if possible. In THAT particular scenario I would want to be saved. If my child is living and breathing and we are drowning, in a fire, etc….SAVE MY CHILD!!!!

By Jen

October 9, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this

I would absolutely save my child. The thought of my child dying alone and scared and in pain after being abandoned my me or his father is a concept I can’t tolerate. Heck, if my child fell off a cliff I would jump after him so I wouldn’t have to spend my days being tortured about how scared he was and if he yelled “Mama!” as he fell.

And my husband is so on board with this.

By abc

October 9, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this

I would hope that I’d save my spouse in lieu of the kids. Should I wimp out and save the kid instead, I’d certainly tell them afterwards that they’d better make the sacrifice worth it. I expect that if the scenario were which parent should the kid save, they’d save their friend instead.

By michelle

October 9, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

FCM,

I usually lurk here, posting occasionally. I do generally agree with your perspective. In this case, I think you generalize too much. I don’t think that because a woman would put her children first in this instance means she does in everyday life.

My husband is a professional musician. I am at every show despite the fact that I have an infant at home, as well as an older child. I make sure that the kids are in bed at a reasonable time every night and that my husband gets my love and attention. He comes first in our daily lives. I am the one in our relationship who makes sure that we have time together and get out of the house either alone or with friends at least a couple of times per month. In my case, it may be because I am the one at home with our kids most of the time and I am the one craving conversation that doesn’t involve Diego and Spider-Man that I make that effort.

All that said, I think (or want to believe at any rate) that most women do put their husbands first in their day to day lives.

BTW, I am sorry for your loss. But I maintain my original point that it is far more difficult to bury your own child than it is to bury a parent, even if you are a child when your parent dies. I can’t speak to burying a spouse and hope I don’t have to anytime in the forseeable future.

By fk

October 9, 2007 6:05 PM | Link to this

I think this was a stupid scenario. What if, what if, what if… Two of my older brothers have each lost a teenager, one last year, one this May. The death of a child, by far, is the saddest experience I’ve had to observe, and it is a club to which you hope never to belong. Everyday, it is a struggle to get out there and face the world. All four of the parents have said that they keep going for the surviving children. One of my bros. and his wife have since divorced. Many couples split or one spouse dies, yet the other endures the loneliness and pain, and moves on.

Quote the bible all you want, but it would be a decision you might question the rest of your life if you chose your child to die. There is no comparison to losing a child. The emptiness left by the death of child does not get filled up by another baby.

My husband’s sister lost her husband very unexpectedly. He was 38. She was an emotional mess. At the funeral, and many times since (1994), she has said that as sad and devastated as she was, she could not imagine what grief her husband’s mother endured.

By momof3

October 9, 2007 6:25 PM | Link to this

How many of you women that are saying you would save your child before your husband have had an abortion to save yourself. Now that is more selfish. So how hypocritical are you being.

By mamaj

October 9, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this

It’s amazing that some of you actually lose reason and intelligence and fall for someone fictitiously posing as a Shenika and making such absurd comments in all caps. You stoop to such an unnecessary level when they force you to make asinine comments back, like you did!!!

By mamaj

October 9, 2007 6:51 PM | Link to this

It is important to note momof3, that abortion is not the issue here, but don’t assume that the same women that are saving their children, are the same women who are having abortions. My children are grown, but if they were small there would be no way on Earth I could continue to live and be of help to anyone—including a husband!! I’m a Christian too,but that scripture in the Bible that some are quoting would be subject to mine own interpretation,just like everything else!!

By Lauryn

October 9, 2007 6:59 PM | Link to this

Jessie’s Girl: First you say that you put your husband first…Always and in all circumstances. Then you say this situation, like abortion, is highly faceted and deserves to be looked at depending on the individual situation. Very cohesive argument! Well done. I am going to call you on it. I don’t think you put your husband first in ALL situations and at ALL times. If that is true then you are a terrible mother who must spend no time with her children because you are too obsessed with her husband’s needs. If that is true I pity your poor children.

By Jesse's Girl

October 9, 2007 7:52 PM | Link to this

I do put my husband first. I put my husband first by showing my children that I am not available to them every second they need something. If I am in the middle of a conversation or what have you with their father…they have to wait. I am putting him first. When I say prayers with our children, I always thank God for my husband first…then the children…then the belssings that follow. When the children want to have company, I tell them that we will have to also check with dad. When I have to schedule a gig or be out of town for said gig…I check his schedule first. And as simple as it may sound to some….he is also served first at the table. But make no mistake….this is no stepford wife he has. He knows when not to cross certain lines…as do I. Our children see us fight on occasion, but they also see us apologize. They see us hug and “kiss”. They know that their parents put one another first. They are confident that when they hear of another friend whose parents are going through a divorce…that we are ok and safe. I most certainly put my marriage before all else in this world. In my humble opinion…it is the best way to combat the pitfalls of raising children these days. Thats not to say that our kids are guaranteed an easy go of it. They will no doubt experience some of the typical issues that all kids do as they grow. But they can rest assured that while mom and dad are raising hell about their latest foul up…they will be doing it together. So save your pity Lauryn for someone who really needs it. But thanks for the offer anyway.

By twinkie

October 10, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this

abc, you need to save your spouse. No child should be forced to live with that kind of guilt.

By jim d

October 10, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

This ones a no-brainer! Simple logic indicates it’s a matter of self-preservation.

I think what everyone is overlooking is that as a man I must save the child first. If I save the spouse first—then fail to save the child, she’d kill me for not saving the child.

Should I be fortunate enough to save both—she’d still kill me for not saving the child first.

By Pat

October 11, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

My child - hands down - no questions. My child is my responsibility to care for, whether he’s 3 or 30, in the womb or on a sinking ship. Children are the future- we must always protect the future- the past can deal with itself.

By Pat

October 11, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this

Ouch - I’ve been reading some of these responses. I thought this was an opinion blog- not a campaign to get everyone to agree. I don’t think anyone’s opinion is wrong - even if I can’t agree with some of them. I mean, everyone is entitled, right? As long as they’re not requiring anyone else to live with it?