PDA

View Full Version : If your husband had to choose between you and your kids



BlueLucario
08-05-2008, 11:34 PM
I know that this is an extremely difficult question for the women to answer, and this may come off as offensive.

A note to the MODS: IF you find this post inappropriate, please let me know. And feel free to lock it.

Imagine you and your kids are in a burning building, and your husband had to choose between you and your kids. If he chose you, how would you feel? Would you still love him?

And if your husband chose you, what would that say about him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer this question. And I hope I'm no bother. :)

Kitrianna
08-05-2008, 11:35 PM
I already know where I stand. I'm number four on the list and it's just fine with me. He's at the same number with me. Kids come first.

jennifer75
08-05-2008, 11:35 PM
Who even THINKS that question, let alone ASK IT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Stew21
08-05-2008, 11:36 PM
Kids first. Even if he wanted to (which he wouldn't) I wouldn't let him save me. I cannot imagine any parent thinking otherwise, or any father that would not choose his children.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
08-05-2008, 11:36 PM
We'd both die trying to get the kids out - of course, they're three cats and a dog...

jennifer75
08-05-2008, 11:37 PM
I already know where I stand. I'm number four on the list and it's just fine with me. He's at the same number with me. Kids come first.

Who ANSWERS that question?!?!?

;) Just givin you a hard time.....

Mr Flibble
08-05-2008, 11:37 PM
We've actually had this conversation ( due to some film we were watching where the guy tries to save his wife not his kids). He'd try and save me and kids, but if it came to a choice - he'd save the kids.

I agree.

If he saved me I'd be extremely angry. Extremely, unforgiveable biblically angry. It would say he was selfish, because he thought of his own needs before that of his children.

Kitrianna
08-05-2008, 11:37 PM
We'd both die trying to get the kids out - of course, they're three cats and a dog...

:roll:

CaroGirl
08-05-2008, 11:37 PM
Kids.

Why would I want to live if I were saved from the same fire that killed my kids?

Stew21
08-05-2008, 11:40 PM
Blue, do you understand that it would be completely unnatural for a father to choose his wife in this situation? It would take a hell of a lot of explaining to make that even a consideration. A parent doesn't make that choice. The kids ARE the choice.

Mr Flibble
08-05-2008, 11:41 PM
Kids.

Why would I want to live if I were saved from the same fire that killed my kids?

Exactly.

Cranky
08-05-2008, 11:42 PM
Blue, do you understand that it would be completely unnatural for a father to choose his wife in this situation? It would take a hell of a lot of explaining to make that even a consideration. A parent doesn't make that choice. The kids ARE the choice.

Yes. Exactly.

quickWit
08-05-2008, 11:42 PM
Which one's closer to the TV? :D

Carry on.

BlueLucario
08-05-2008, 11:46 PM
Blue, do you understand that it would be completely unnatural for a father to choose his wife in this situation? It would take a hell of a lot of explaining to make that even a consideration. A parent doesn't make that choice. The kids ARE the choice.
I didn't know. I'm not married and I don't have kids.

I knew this was a bad question.

I saw this movie where this man chose his love, when both her and her kids are held hostage in different building with a bomb inside. His first choice was his wife, because he loves her too much for her to die. So I thought this is saying this is how much he loves his wife, not being selfish.

SpookyWriter
08-05-2008, 11:47 PM
What about the mistress?

BlueLucario
08-05-2008, 11:48 PM
Kids.

Why would I want to live if I were saved from the same fire that killed my kids?

Ouch. Good Point :(

JLCwrites
08-05-2008, 11:49 PM
Anyone want some bbq Turkey?

maestrowork
08-05-2008, 11:50 PM
I'm not married and I don't have kids. But it's just human nature. We protect our young.

Also, as someone says, you may have different wives or husbands, but you only get one father or mother. How can one choose between someone who's not related to you vs. your own blood? And if you love your wife more than you love your kids, then something is not quite right, IMHO.

BlueLucario
08-05-2008, 11:57 PM
If he saved me I'd be extremely angry. Extremely, unforgiveable biblically angry. It would say he was selfish, because he thought of his own needs before that of his children.

That's selfish? I thought it's selfish if he left you both in a burning building. I thought this is telling you that he loves you.

Shadow_Ferret
08-05-2008, 11:59 PM
*points* Ray isn't a married woman! Foul!

Me, as a married male with children, I'd save the children.

Wives are a dime a dozen. Your own progeny is harder to come by.

Especially since I've been spade or neutered.

Stew21
08-06-2008, 12:05 AM
That's selfish? I thought it's selfish if he left you both in a burning building. I thought this is telling you that he loves you.

In this situation he can show his love one way.
His Love is this: he would save my children. He would love me enough to save them instead of me.

Mr Flibble
08-06-2008, 12:09 AM
That's selfish? I thought it's selfish if he left you both in a burning building. I thought this is telling you that he loves you.

He wouldn't leave - he'd save the kids or die trying. I wouldn't have married him otherwise. Denying our kids the chance of rescue for me would be selfish becasue he would be saving me for himself. Because as parents, the kids ALWAYS come first. No matter what. Non negotiable.


His Love is this: he would save my children. He would love me enough to save them instead of me. Yup - because this would be selfless, not selfish.

Jersey Chick
08-06-2008, 12:21 AM
I can't see my husband even having to think about this - kids first without a doubt. If he did save me first, he'd regret it because I'd kill him. And I'm not joking about that.

Red-Green
08-06-2008, 12:24 AM
Kids, hell. I think my husband would save the cats before he saved me.

Jersey Chick
08-06-2008, 12:26 AM
If we didn't have kids, the tv and cable box would probably come before me ;)

Williebee
08-06-2008, 12:27 AM
*points* Ray isn't a married woman! Foul!

*points* Ferret isn't a married woman! Foul!

Oh, wait. That's me, too.

Blue- It isn't a bad question. Give it some time and let's see what other answers come out.

Example: My kid is in her 20's. When she's home she sleeps on the other end of the house. Do I get hammered here because I pushed my wife, who was in bed beside me, out the window ahead of (I said AHEAD, not IN TO) the fire before going to check on my kid?

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 12:31 AM
Yup - because this would be selfless, not selfish.

Exactly. Saving the innocent children and sacrifice the love of your life would be a selfless act. Saving the spouse for yourself and sacrifice the little children would be a selfish act. Of course, standing around and not doing anything would just be absolutely deplorable.

BlueLucario
08-06-2008, 12:34 AM
Denying our kids the chance of rescue for me would be selfish becasue he would be saving me for himself. Because as parents, the kids ALWAYS come first. No matter what. Non negotiable.

Yup - because this would be selfless, not selfish.

I...Think I understand you. I think.

Choosing you over the kids is selfish because if he loved you that much, he would not feel any pain if he saved you.

Sorry, I'm not married, so I don't know.

dpaterso
08-06-2008, 12:39 AM
There's no harm in asking, if this helps you decide how to write a scene. But the reactions you got in this thread should warn you of the level of emotion such a scene might provoke in readers.

-Derek

Maryn
08-06-2008, 12:46 AM
Good points made quite well, save mine (which probably won't be made nearly as well.)

Since my husband and I are of more of less equal strength, who's to say that he's saving anybody? I prefer to think we are saving our kids. I'm not some helpless wuss who stands there wringing her hands waiting for some big strong man to save her. If there's a way to save my kids, then myself, I'm totally on it.

Blue, FWIW, the first time you hold your newborn, you realize that at last, there's a person in the world you'd die for, if it came to that, no questions asked, no hesitation shown. Kids are that important. It's hard-wired deep in our brains.

Maryn, whose son might well be too freakin' lazy to save himself

Williebee
08-06-2008, 12:49 AM
Blue, FWIW, the first time you hold your newborn, you realize that at last, there's a person in the world you'd die for,

Yup. Somewhere in those first few breaths it goes from being something trite in a bad love song, to something you've known to be true your entire life, even if you didn't realize it.

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 12:52 AM
Sorry, I'm not married, so I don't know.Do you have kids though?

Mr Flibble
08-06-2008, 12:59 AM
Sorry, I'm not married, so I don't know.

I know that's why you're asking. It's not a problem - but most parents will have very firm views on this.

It's not the marriage part really - it's the parenthood part. Mothers in particular - well think mother bear and cubs. A lot of parents would, quite literally, kill to save their kids. I'd happily spend the rest of my life behind bars to keep my kids from harm - but I'd have to beat my hubby to it.

When you have kids, there is a part of you that becomes completely irrational. In certain situations instinct takes over. It's hardwired into you to protect the young 'uns. Even if you aren't a parent that part is still there. Think of headlines that say '30 dead in bus crash.' Think how much worse it sounds when that same headline says '30 children dead in bus crash'.

This is why in say the UK, Dunblane had so much emotional impact. Some nutter going bonkers and killing people is bad enough. Some nutter going bonkers and killing kids in primary school is so much worse, emotionally. In fact it still chokes me up now. It's the potential of the lives that were lost, and that they'll never get to see.

Actually I may go and have a little blub now.

BlueLucario
08-06-2008, 12:59 AM
Do you have kids though?
No, I don't.

This thread is making me cry now. :(

Adam Israel
08-06-2008, 01:05 AM
I knew this was a bad question.


If you knew it was a bad question... why did you ask it?

StoryG27
08-06-2008, 01:05 AM
My husband and I have always made a point to put each other first, but in this situation, he'd rescue the kids and assume I had the best chance of rescuing myself. Kids rely on their parents to protect and sacrifice for them, it's what we do.

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 01:08 AM
My husband and I have always made a point to put each other first, but in this situation, he'd rescue the kids and assume I had the best chance of rescuing myself. Kids rely on their parents to protect and sacrifice for them, it's what we do.

Trade yours for my kids:


Don't forget to send your son his birthday gift. :-)

Brat. Like he'd think I'd forget his birthday.

StoryG27
08-06-2008, 01:10 AM
Brat. Like he'd think I'd forget his birthday.
Yup, brat, just like his daddy!
:D

sheadakota
08-06-2008, 01:12 AM
Blue, do you understand that it would be completely unnatural for a father to choose his wife in this situation? It would take a hell of a lot of explaining to make that even a consideration. A parent doesn't make that choice. The kids ARE the choice.
What she said- there is no choice- He would die before leaving his children, as would I.

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 01:12 AM
Yup, brat, just like his daddy!
:DHe's a good kid, but would I save him instead of my new twenty year old Ukrainian bride? :Shrug:

StoryG27
08-06-2008, 01:14 AM
He's a good kid, but would I save him instead of my new twenty year old Ukrainian bride? :Shrug:
Didn't you get that fancy mail order bride insurance?

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 01:16 AM
Didn't you get that fancy mail order bride insurance?

Yeah, but they forgot to lick the stamp.

sheadakota
08-06-2008, 01:16 AM
I didn't know. I'm not married and I don't have kids.

I knew this was a bad question.

I saw this movie where this man chose his love, when both her and her kids are held hostage in different building with a bomb inside. His first choice was his wife, because he loves her too much for her to die. So I thought this is saying this is how much he loves his wife, not being selfish.
If my husband did this I would hate him forever. As I said Kids first Always!

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 01:17 AM
Didn't you get that fancy mail order bride insurance?Yep, but the deductable was too high for fire insurance so I had to waive that part.

BlueLucario
08-06-2008, 01:18 AM
Okay, I saw in this one movie where the man had to choose between his love and her child. He didn't hesitate to chose his love. Well, he'd do about anything to keep her from harm, and he loves her too much to lose her.

Again like I said, I thought it shows the wife how much he loves her. But yeah, that is cruel not to save the children.

What would that say about the man?

dpaterso
08-06-2008, 01:19 AM
Okay, I saw in this one movie where the man had to choose between his love and her child. He didn't hesitate to chose his love. Well, he'd do about anything to keep her from harm, and he loves her too much to lose her.

Again like I said, I thought it shows the wife how much he loves her, but I guess that's freakish love.
I don't know if I'd call it freakish -- but can you remember the movie (or who was in it) and how the wife reacted?

-Derek

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 01:20 AM
If my husband did this I would hate him forever. As I said Kids first Always!Too bad this motto from the Titanic didn't become a reality for the children on board.

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/children-on-titanic/

I'd say about half the kids perished while the men and women got to the boats first.

:Shrug:

WendyNYC
08-06-2008, 01:21 AM
Kids, for sure. We've actually had this conversation. We were on a boat a few miles off shore and it got really rocky. The kids were small and I was the only real swimmer. I told him I'd go after the kids if we went over, and sorry, but he was on his own. He said "of course."

He took swimming lessons after that day.

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 01:22 AM
Too bad this motto from the Titanic didn't become a reality for the children on board.

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/children-on-titanic/

I'd say about half the kids perished while the men and women got to the boats first.

:Shrug:

I think those children were in steerage, and their parents perished with them as well. Otherwise, it was "children and women" first.

BlueLucario
08-06-2008, 01:23 AM
I don't know if I'd call it freakish -- but can you remember the movie (or who was in it) and how the wife reacted?

-Derek
She was pretty mad, until the man confesses his love for her. Now she's confused.

MattW
08-06-2008, 01:23 AM
What about the choice between saving parents or spouses?

I think it would be different than the blood argument, though I see many people who would pick their parents first, then their spouse. That's a set of unhealthy priorities as well.

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 01:23 AM
Kids, for sure. We've actually had this conversation. We were on a boat a few miles off shore and it got really rocky. The kids were small and I was the only real swimmer. I told him I'd go after the kids if we went over, and sorry, but he was on his own. He said "of course."

He took swimming lessons after that day.Read the post above yours.

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 01:24 AM
She was pretty mad, until the man confesses his love for her. Now she's confused.

Of course she is. Does that mean he doesn't love the children? Not enough to save them first? What does it say about this guy as a person, a father, a husband? What if he one day discovers that he doesn't love her anymore? I don't think I would trust someone like that, when his priority is all skewed.

StoryG27
08-06-2008, 01:24 AM
What about the choice between saving parents or spouses?


Spouse, every time all the time for me. No hesitation. No question. I know it would be the same for Hubs too.

September skies
08-06-2008, 01:25 AM
Kids. period. They always come first.

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 01:26 AM
I think those children were in steerage, and their parents perished with them as well. Otherwise, it was "children and women" first.That, I believe, was the motto. But was it really true? Aren't there other tragic events (i.e. 911) where the children weren't necessarily first on the list of priorities?

Mr Flibble
08-06-2008, 01:26 AM
Okay, I saw in this one movie where the man had to choose between his love and her child. He didn't hesitate to chose his love. Well, he'd do about anything to keep her from harm, and he loves her too much to lose her.

Again like I said, I thought it shows the wife how much he loves her. But yeah, that is cruel not to save the children.

What would that say about the man?

What film was it? It may have been the same one that sparked this conversation with my Old Man. I won't tell you what he said ( it was er rude) but it was along the lines of 'No man would do that. The guys a BLEEP'

ETA: I wouldn't be just 'pretty mad'. I'd be using a frying pan in nasty places. But that's just me.

If he could have saved the kid but chose her - it says he's not thinking about her happiness (unless she's a complete bleep as a mum, she would rather die than see her kid die), he's thinking about his happiness. And for me it would make him something less than a man. ( IMHO and all that). *censors self on next part*

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 01:28 AM
That, I believe, was the motto. But was it really true? Aren't there other tragic events (i.e. 911) where the children weren't necessarily first on the list of priorities?

There always were, are and will be selfish people. But by and large I do believe the parents tried to save their children first on the Titanic.

BlueLucario
08-06-2008, 01:28 AM
If he could have saved the kid but chose her - it says he's not thinking about her happiness (unless she's a complete bleep as a mum, she would rather die than see her kid die), he's thinking about his happiness. And for me it would make him something less than a man. ( IMHO and all that). *censors self on next part*

NOW, I understand you. Thanks Julie!

SpookyWriter
08-06-2008, 01:29 AM
Of course she is. Does that mean he doesn't love the children? Not enough to save them first? What does it say about this guy as a person, a father, a husband? What if he one day discovers that he doesn't love her anymore? I don't think I would trust someone like that, when his priority is all skewed.But sometimes the father and/or mother aren't supposed to be virtuous and save the children first before themselves.

Good people can behave badly in certain (trying or perilous) situations.

Siddow
08-06-2008, 01:29 AM
I know that this is an extremely difficult question for the women to answer, and this may come off as offensive.
<snip>
Imagine you and your kids are in a burning building, and your husband had to choose between you and your kids. If he chose you, how would you feel? Would you still love him?

And if your husband chose you, what would that say about him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer this question. And I hope I'm no bother. :)

1. Not offensive to me.

2. I, too, would want him to save the kids. As if I'd have a choice! I'd be hollering, "The kids! Get the kids!" to his freaking BACK.

3. IF he chose me, I'd realize what a lame-ass d*ckweed he is and I'd go get the kids myself. Dragging Mr. D*ckweed along, of course, in case I needed to use him as a cushion for the kids to land on, or a bridge to cross over.

4. I love him for who he is, not for how smartly he handles stressful situations. We're all apt to screw up under pressure. So yeah, I'd still love him, and be by his side the whole time he was in the hospital recovering from his burning/beating/broken spine from using him as bridge.

5. IF he chose me, what it would say (to me) about him was that he was deeply dependent on me and we'd need to fix that. Because next time I'm in a burning building, he and the kids might be across town at the park. And he'd have to know how to handle that. For the kids.

MattW
08-06-2008, 01:29 AM
What film was it? It may have been the same one that sparked this conversation with my Old Man. I won't tell you what he said ( it was er rude) but it was along the lines of 'No man would do that. The guys a BLEEP'

If he could have saved the kid but chose her - it says he's not thinking about her happiness (unless she's a complete bleep as a mum, she would rather die than see her kid die), he's thinking about his happiness. And for me it would make him something less than a man. ( IMHO and all that). *censors self on next part*The woman then begins to resent him for his choice, and her depression. He can't face the guilt that he chose poorly, and he kills himself in the same location where the kids died.

The widow is now left with her life in shambles, everyone she loves is gone, and she doesn't have the courage to join them.

Begin chapter 1 here.

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 01:33 AM
The woman then begins to resent him for his choice, and her depression. He can't face the guilt that he chose poorly, and he kills himself in the same location where the kids died.

The widow is now left with her life in shambles, everyone she loves is gone, and she doesn't have the courage to join them.

Begin chapter 1 here.

I can see Oprah...

Mr Flibble
08-06-2008, 01:34 AM
Actually Matt that is strangely reminiscent of the scene I'm writing ( trying to write, damn you AW) at the mo - STOP STEALING MY PLOT!!!!!

BlueLucario
08-06-2008, 01:37 AM
I'm writing a scene about this right now. wow, I need to get off. AW is way too distracting.

Ol' Fashioned Girl
08-06-2008, 01:39 AM
Too bad this motto from the Titanic didn't become a reality for the children on board.

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/children-on-titanic/

I'd say about half the kids perished while the men and women got to the boats first.

:Shrug:

Many behind locked gates or asleep in their beds 'cause Mom and Dad didn't believe there was any real danger until it was too late.

Silver King
08-06-2008, 01:46 AM
Blue, I'm going to change the thread title and take out the Married Women only!!!! part. For one thing, it's not necessary; and for another, everyone is invited to participate in discussions, not just certain genders or married people or parents or whatever.

If you ever have children some day, you'll never have to consider again how far you would go to protect and save them from harm. You will know the answer instinctively. Your life will have far less value than theirs, and you won't ever stop to consider, even if it means risking your life, how far you will go to keep them out of harm's way.

WendyNYC
08-06-2008, 02:19 AM
What about the choice between saving parents or spouses?

I think it would be different than the blood argument, though I see many people who would pick their parents first, then their spouse. That's a set of unhealthy priorities as well.

Spouse, no question.

TerzaRima
08-06-2008, 02:26 AM
Does it make a difference whether the kids are adults or not? I'm not a parent, so don't know.

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 02:29 AM
Spouse, no question.

OK, another twist of this question: Knowing that your children may save their spouses instead of saving you, would that change your mind about saving them first?

I guess it ties back to whether said "children" are adults or not.

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 02:31 AM
Does it make a difference whether the kids are adults or not? I'm not a parent, so don't know.

I know my parents would save me first. Their reasoning is that they've lived their lives and they're at the end of their journey, but I still have a full life ahead of me. Plus I don't think the parent-child bond is ever broken even after the child is fully grown or has a family of his/her own. Something just doesn't really change.

WendyNYC
08-06-2008, 02:32 AM
OK, another twist of this question: Knowing that your children may save their spouses instead of saving you, would that change your mind about saving them first?

I guess it ties back to whether said "children" are adults or not.

No, I hope they find someone who they love that much.

And I hope that I'm really, realllly old when the fire breaks out.

Mr Flibble
08-06-2008, 02:35 AM
I was assuming kids = young'uns

I can't see I'd love 'em any less but they'd be adults. An adult v a child ....I'd noy hurt any less - but I'd think they made their own choices. The Old man woul still save them though, and I'd want him to ( one of us would us anyway), because there will be experiences they could still have that I've already experienced.

If that makes sense.

Williebee
08-06-2008, 02:38 AM
Young kids? Kids first. DB and I did have this conversation once, when munchkin was about 4. Conversation was about 4 lines long.

Munchkin first, right?

Hell, yes.

I love you.

I know.

:)

akiwiguy
08-06-2008, 03:36 AM
One of the most poignant scenes in any movie that I can think of is the moment of choice in Sophie's Choice.

Whether I'd save my children before anyone else including spouse is a no-brainer, but I've always thought that if somehow I was in a position to be able to rescue only one child at a time and I failed on the second attempt... that would be the moment I entered an eternal nightmare I think.

Silver King
08-06-2008, 03:36 AM
Does it make a difference whether the kids are adults or not?
No, it doesn't, at least for me. Mine are spread out from early teens to mid-twenties. I worry less now about the older children, but my feelings for their wellbeing hasn't diminished at all over the years.

My dad mentioned something to me once when my sister, who was in her thirties at the time, was going through a rough stretch. He was worried for her safety and said, "You know, my children have never stopped being kids, no matter how old they get."

I think what he meant was that even though our children age into adulthood, we still perceive them with the same intense feelings of love we've always possessed for them. And he was right.

eveningstar
08-06-2008, 03:46 AM
a. I can save my own self and I'd probably have to save my husband, too, depending on the situation.

b. We don't have kids, we are not going to have kids. I would do everything in my power to save my cats, though, once my husband was out of danger.

c. Parents vs. Spouse: Spouse, definitely.

Danger Jane
08-06-2008, 03:47 AM
My kid-saving mechanism would definitely kick in without a second thought. Or a first thought, probably. I don't think you have to have had kids already to know this, or else my friends are right and I do have maternal instincts to spare.

Perks
08-06-2008, 03:48 AM
One of the most poignant scenes in any movie that I can think of is the moment of choice in Sophie's Choice.

It's the most horrible thing ever filmed.

But very well done.

CaroGirl
08-06-2008, 04:13 AM
The whole idea of Sophie's Choice makes me sick to my stomach. I haven't seen the film but I read the book, before I had kids. I'm not sure I could read it again now.

Perks
08-06-2008, 04:15 AM
Having one kid was bad enough. Contemplating the moment after you've had more than one is somewhat masochistic.

Perks
08-06-2008, 04:25 AM
To the original question, though - I think that it's rarely this easy of a choice. There's a situational triage that will generally come into play in crises and any individual may choose to go with it or fight for something more unlikely. The fallout from any such decision is huge.

Jenny
08-06-2008, 04:32 AM
But here we're talking one off decision. Years ago I watched an interview with Russian survivors from the Second World War. Stalingrad (or whatever the city was called) was beseiged by the Germans. The woman being interviewed was away from the city when the blockade set in. Her sister was looking after this woman's children as well as her own. Her sister's children survived, her children died of starvation. This woman accepted the choices her sister had made.

akiwiguy
08-06-2008, 05:06 AM
But here we're talking one off decision. Years ago I watched an interview with Russian survivors from the Second World War. Stalingrad (or whatever the city was called) was beseiged by the Germans. The woman being interviewed was away from the city when the blockade set in. Her sister was looking after this woman's children as well as her own. Her sister's children survived, her children died of starvation. This woman accepted the choices her sister had made.

To me that situation would also be a no-brainer. Much as one would try to keep all children alive, mine would be priority in the end. I can only begin to imagine what process that involve, but I know I would want my children to survive before any others.

Kryianna
08-06-2008, 05:18 AM
I'm pretty self sufficient, and my husband is a klutz. It'd more likely be me saving the kids, then saving him from where he tripped in the hallway.

And spouse before parents, definitely.

It's also interesting to me to hear how philosophies have changed over the years. Way back when, when you had as many kids as you could knock out to increase the chances that one would live to adulthood, the concept was "The tree can bear more fruit". In other words, if the wife was still of childbearing age, you saved her first because she could have more kids.

Silver King
08-06-2008, 05:20 AM
...Her sister's children survived, her children died of starvation. This woman accepted the choices her sister had made.


To me that situation would also be a no-brainer. Much as one would try to keep all children alive, mine would be priority in the end. I can only begin to imagine what process that involve, but I know I would want my children to survive before any others.
Yeah, that's when it gets down to the real nitty-gritty. Woe to the person who was ever faced with such a dilemma. In the end, though, our children come first, always, even when we're faced with the bleakest of options.

C.bronco
08-06-2008, 05:22 AM
I know that this is an extremely difficult question for the women to answer, and this may come off as offensive.

A note to the MODS: IF you find this post inappropriate, please let me know. And feel free to lock it.

Imagine you and your kids are in a burning building, and your husband had to choose between you and your kids. If he chose you, how would you feel? Would you still love him?

And if your husband chose you, what would that say about him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer this question. And I hope I'm no bother. :)
My son would live a long, healthy life.
;)

robeiae
08-06-2008, 05:27 AM
What about the choice between saving parents or spouses?

I think it would be different than the blood argument, though I see many people who would pick their parents first, then their spouse. That's a set of unhealthy priorities as well.
Well, that question has been the subject of some extensive research. I remember going through some of it some twenty-five+ years ago. If memory serves, the typical response varied by culture/region. Cultures with extended families living together/nearby yielded "mother" more often than not, while cultures with single family units yielded "wife." The same is true when the second variable was "spouse," though not quite so true when the first was "father." Fathers tended to get the short end of the stick, so to speak.

Silver King
08-06-2008, 05:33 AM
...It's also interesting to me to hear how philosophies have changed over the years. Way back when, when you had as many kids as you could knock out to increase the chances that one would live to adulthood, the concept was "The tree can bear more fruit". In other words, if the wife was still of childbearing age, you saved her first because she could have more kids.
I thought of that earlier, but the argument fails when you consider the loss of life that can never be replaced. Having one or three or five more children with the spouse you saved won't ever compensate for those who have died.

Here's a better idea: Save the existing children, lose the wife, marry anew, then "knock out" a whole new batch of kids. ;)

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 06:30 AM
On one hand, your spouse is someone else's spawn. Your children are yours.

On the other hand, they can't produce another one of the person you call "honey"; but you can produce other children.


Ah, tough choices. Shall we toss a coin? ;)

Siddow
08-06-2008, 06:32 AM
I think we shoulda kept this to teh married wimmins.

Now we're getting fish jokes.

Silver King
08-06-2008, 06:52 AM
...Now we're getting fish jokes.
This is a serous matter! Like the time I was fishing on a boat with a friend, and we both had to take a leak.

He looked around, somewhat shy to expose himself. I stood next to him. With both hands straining mightily, I finally released myself.

He said, "Brrr, the water's cold."

I said, "Yeah, it's deep, too."

And now I have to go to bed before I get into any more trouble. :)

Siddow
08-06-2008, 07:12 AM
boo! hiss! boo!

That's supposed to be told from a bridge, like Ray tells it (the liar!).

James81
08-06-2008, 07:37 AM
I'd probably choose my kids over my own mother.

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 07:42 AM
boo! hiss! boo!

That's supposed to be told from a bridge, like Ray tells it (the liar!).

Bridge? BRIDGE?

Try a Boeing 747 over Hawaii...

Siddow
08-06-2008, 07:44 AM
Bridge? BRIDGE?

Try a Boeing 747 over Hawaii...

Sorry, I already outed you as a liar. See above.

maestrowork
08-06-2008, 07:46 AM
If you're going to lie, lie BIG. Long. And Uncut.

Siddow
08-06-2008, 07:51 AM
But ya know, there's something to be said for Jewish men...

willfulone
08-06-2008, 08:09 AM
Children come out first. There is no thinking involved, it just is. Human instinct is to help the young, the weak, the ill and the infirm who cannot help themselves before helping those who can help themselves.

That said:

In the posts Blue keeps referring to this woman and HER child. She does not refer to the child in question as the couple's child. As if the man is NOT the biological father of the child that needs saving. It is almost as if he has no connection to the child emotionally and is only emotionally attached to the woman. That does not make it right to save the woman, children come out first. But, this man may think they can have their own child together to replace the lost child? NO, one child never replaces another. But, in his warped mind it might work that way? What if he met this woman sans child on a ship, whirlwind romance, love at first sight and they marry within a week. They come home and the fire is 2 days after they get there and it's the kid's first night home after they visited their dad? While still not right to not save children, that puts a different spin on the story, IMO. I am not saying that he should save the woman, but it may go to his mindset for saving her first.

Blue, is the man the biological father of the child? Is he a stepfather and new to the family unit? How much time does he have invested in this family if he is the stepfather?

That may help the rest of us understand his desire to save his love before her child.

I would kill a fireman who grabbed me and not my child. Anyone else, who knows me and would come for me first would die slowly and painfully. The fireman would get a swift, painless death - he did his job, did not know any better.

BlueLucario
08-06-2008, 04:39 PM
no, he's not the father of the child.

willfulone
08-06-2008, 11:42 PM
no, he's not the father of the child.

Can you answer the rest of the questions too? It may shed light on his decision. The name of the show or movie would be appreciated too.

Thanks!

Christine

SherryTex
08-07-2008, 12:13 AM
Husband would save kids, he'd also be marshalling them to save the next ---how many trips into the building do we get????

Silver King
08-07-2008, 03:55 AM
no, he's not the father of the child.
Now that REALLY changes the meaning of this thread. You should have mentioned this vital fact earlier, like when you started the discussion.

This is what you wrote in the original post:

Imagine you and your kids are in a burning building, and your husband had to choose between you and your kids. If he chose you, how would you feel? Would you still love him?Now how the heck is anyone responding here supposed to interpret that the man in question is not the children's biological father? We went through exactly one hundred posts before you clarified that fact. Nearly every response before that were from well-meaning people who described how they would react if THEIR kids were trapped in the fire, not someone else's children.

I think the respondents here have been betrayed, or at least misled. We've divulged our intimate feelings about our families, only to learn that what the OP really meant to ask was...

In my mind, this thread is irretrievably broken. Now it's closed.

I love this forum, you know? And I don't appreciate seeing it misused for any reason.