[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jords

My initial answer would be child, as theyre younger and have much more to live for, and Id imagine the mother, my partner, would say to save her child too.

However you could argue that the mother has more roles in life - a daughter, wife, her occupation etc. and potentially to be a mother again.

Also I think you could comfort each other with the loss of the child, whereas losing the love of your life might send you on a downward spiral.

Not a nice thought at all, and just thinking about it I think Id save my partner if we under the age of 45, however in the situation its very likely Id change to my child with them being so innocent and young.

Yeah I agree with this, I think I'd save my partner. Although, having neither, it's impossible to say

[Shasown]

Think outside the box.

If you lived in Norfolk, your child might be your partner, no dilema then.

I suppose being an incestuous inbreed could have its good points every now and then eh?

[GypsyGoth]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Think outside the box.

If you lived in Norfolk, your child might be your partner, no dilema then.

I suppose being an incestuous inbreed could have its good points every now and then eh?

[Ninastar]

I'd save the child

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I have a tendency to lean toward this if I'm very honest.

I 'think' I'd save the child -but if I was presented with the reality of the situation: I'm not entirely sure.

I hope you're not a Mother or thinking of being one?

you can replace partners but children are literally a part of you. Can't believe you even have doubts.

[CharlieO]

Child because the partner has more of chance to save themselves where as a child may not know what to do.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Zippy

I hope you're not a Mother or thinking of being one?

you can replace partners but children are literally a part of you. Can't believe you even have doubts.

Your wish is granted. hence why I CAN have 'doubts - because for me, it is merely a scenario and always will be. It is a situation I will never find myself in thankfully ..... which is precisely the reason I starting the thread.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Think outside the box.

If you lived in Norfolk, your child might be your partner, no dilema then.

I suppose being an incestuous inbreed could have its good points every now and then eh?

Brilliant !!!

You aren't on Tibbs enough Shasown - you never fail to brighten me up with these belters !!

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Child because the partner has more of chance to save themselves where as a child may not know what to do.

That's a really strong point, I can fully agree with that.

[ElProximo]

Child. My unborn child even.

Then again you could make the argument wives could make another child and then more after that.

[Niamh.]

What a horrible choice to make :/ But it would be my child without doubt and I know my husband would want me to pick our child, if it was a situation where my husband had to pick either me or our child then I would absolutely want him to pick our child. As a parent it's a no brainer really.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Yeah I agree with this, I think I'd save my partner. Although, having neither, it's impossible to say

lol, I can guarantee you your opinion will change if you ever do have kids. Don't get me wrong I adore my husband but the protection instinct you have for your kids trumps everything else.

[Angus]

It's a parent's first instinct and duty to protect their child no matter what, so it's a no brainer.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jords

My initial answer would be child, as theyre younger and have much more to live for, and Id imagine the mother, my partner, would say to save her child too.

However you could argue that the mother has more roles in life - a daughter, wife, her occupation etc. and potentially to be a mother again.

Also I think you could comfort each other with the loss of the child, whereas losing the love of your life might send you on a downward spiral.

Not a nice thought at all, and just thinking about it I think Id save my partner if we under the age of 45, however in the situation its very likely Id change to my child with them being so innocent and young.

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I said Child above and in a straight trauamatic choice of Partner or only Child that would remain my thought.

However and it's 2 different scenarios, faced with the same choice of partner or child,but the child not being an only child, I may not have time to think hard about it but I would need to take into account I would be depriving the other children of their parent too,a harder choice to make, in that scenario I may move to save the partner.

In another scenario where a child is waiting to be born,with the choice of saving only partner or Child then,then I would likely there choose the partner as we could have more Children but finding a true and good partner is a hard thing to achieve too,so if I had a partner I adored then I likely wouldn't want to not save them in that scenario.

One really testing question this one Pyramid.

Originally Posted by angus58

It's a parent's first instinct and duty to protect their child no matter what, so it's a no brainer.

The top two posts that I've quoted reflect other reasons that it may not be an automatic 'save the child' situation. Therefore rather than it being 'a no brainer' - both Jords and Joey have offered insightful reasons for it being a discussion point - and their post show that it might not be the very simple 'automatic' reaction of 'save the child' that may be the best option.

[InOne]

Well if the wife has life insurance, looks like the kid gets saved

[Vicky.]

My child.

I dont have children, but just looking in on my sister and her baby(who is a few months old), the way she looks at her...well...I cant imagine having a bond like that with anyone. Its a bit like she would rip out her own eyeballs to give the kid everything(I know how corny that sounds but I cant think of any other way to put it)

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Your wish is granted.

.... which is precisely the reason I starting the thread.

Thankgod

started*

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

The top two posts that I've quoted reflect other reasons that it may not be an automatic 'save the child' situation. Therefore rather than it being 'a no brainer' - both Jords and Joey have offered insightful reasons for it being a discussion point - and their post show that it might not be the very simple 'automatic' reaction of 'save the child' that may be the best option.

Well, I don't mean to sound patronizing but the two people you've quoted don't have kids, losing a child would be thee worst thing that could possibly happen to a parent, your child is not supposed to die before you and losing a child has been the cause of many relationships breaking up.

I don't think one person with kids has come on here and said that they would save their partner first which is much more telling about how people who actually have kids feel about the scenario.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, I don't mean to sound patronizing but the two people you've quoted don't have kids, losing a child would be thee worst thing that could possibly happen to a parent, your child is not supposed to die before you and losing a child has been the cause of many relationships breaking up.

I don't think one person with kids has come on here and said that they would save their partner first which is much more telling about how people who actually have kids feel about the scenario.

I totally agree with you Niamh, I don't have Children and maybe never will so for me I maybe don't have that immediate I must save..... one or the other reaction to the situation.

When I first answered this question,I tried to think of my Nephews and Nieces and how maybe my Brothers would think in the situation,thinking on those lines I came down to the opinion of saving the child first as you rightly say, along with most of those who have Children on here have.

I was then because I don't have Children able to afford myself the luxury(for want of better word) to think deeper on it and see if there were any scenarios' that would or could possibly alter my thinking in that situation,I personally believe in a situation like that you wouldn't have time to think and analyse, your reaction would be to as quick as possible save the one least likely to save themselves and even from my single status,I believe that the instinct would be to save the Child too which was my first post on this question.

It is a testing question but putting it into another scenario,if I was a passer by, seeing an adult and Child struggling to get to safety in some predicament, whether that was danger of drowning or something else, even then just as a passer by I would rush to save the Child first.No hesitation.

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

What a horrible choice to make :/ But it would be my child without doubt and I know my husband would want me to pick our child, if it was a situation where my husband had to pick either me or our child then I would absolutely want him to pick our child. As a parent it's a no brainer really.

Originally Posted by angus58

It's a parent's first instinct and duty to protect their child no matter what, so it's a no brainer.

I agree with both of the above. It's absolutely simple for me to answer that question. And I love my husband to distraction. But there's nothing in this world more frightening, astonishing and almost barbaric as how you feel about your child. Interesting discussion, though, Mids; I know I'd have had to think about it before I had kids. Now there's no thought process involved at all. It's completely innate - for almost all parents, I think.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, I don't mean to sound patronizing but the two people you've quoted don't have kids..

exactemondo

end of

[joeysteele]

Single people may not have Children,but they've been Children and know that their parents would always protect them. Although its right to infer a bond of parenthood is not there with Single people,that doesn't mean they are unable to relate to the massive bond between parents and children.

I know as a child, my Parents would have raced across burning coal and tore through barbed wire with their hands to save me,being single does not remove any understanding of love,devotion to and the desire to protect at any cost Children.

In fact single people can at times protect Children far better than,(although a very small minority of such Parents),some Parents actually do.

[Zippy]

Any woman that says she'd save her partner above her child is just a vile selfish bitch as far as Im concerned. Saving the one that gives her most above the one who needs her most.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Zippy

Any woman that says she'd save her partner above her child is just a vile selfish bitch as far as Im concerned. Saving the one that gives her most above the one who needs her most.

I dont think any adult would save another adult over a child in a real life situation, unless it was impossible to save the child. Even then most adults would still have a good go at saving the child.

Talking about the choices in a forum in the cold light of day does not equate to the emotions and thought processes a person enters into in a real life situation

By the way really sorry to hear your bad news, I will really miss your voice.

[Grimnir]

Life of your child comes before everything else
To save their child, most people would sacrifice themselves if they needed to, otherwise they are awful parent.
So there is no debate really.
Both husband and wife would give their life for their child, they both know this, so child comes first.
Anyone who has to actually think about this is just wrong in the head.