TotalMILF

I'd want xepherys to choose the baby's life over mine. My reasoning is that I've already had an awesome life thus far, and the baby should have the same opportunity. I hope to God we're never in that situation...

CaliLivChick

Prefacing this by stating the fact that I don't have kids, I would choose to save my SO. You spend years of your life trying to find your soulmate, and once you find that person, you've chosen each other. Yes, an attachment to your child is created even before the child is born, but your children, just like the rest of your blood relations, are assigned to you.

__________________
Don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die. Oh wait, that's me... nevermind... you can trust me.

tecoyah

My Wife is by far....the most important aspect of this life to me. Nothing will ever replace her, Nothing could measure to the loss I would feel. My selfish nature would require she be saved....period.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Sticky

WARNING - Long Post



Obviously a really tough question.

I am not positive of what my choice would be:
- I would really not know unless I was in the exact situation
- I think that there are so many things about the specific situation that would have an effect on the decision. For example:

What are the chances of survival for the wife? What are the chances of survival for the baby?


Do we already have any kids?


Has she had any pregnancies before?


What is the chance of her getting pregnant again?
Often in situations of difficult delivery (the OP was talking about a delivery) the woman may be left with the inability to have children in the future.


How would my wife react to loosing a child?
There are women who don't recover from a miscarriage. How would mine/your wife (or you) handle loosing a child during delivery.
There are a lot of peole who say that it is harder to loose a SO than a child. I disagree. Now I am not disagreeing with your choice in this thread just with the statement that it is harder to loose a SO.
Do the people who said this have children? There were probably some who did and some who did not.
There was someone who said that a SO is forever. I don't agree with this eaither.
While I personally see a SO as forever, divorce and infidelity (infidelity here = without the SO's approval) statistics don't seem to support this.

A child is forever. No matter what you do, once you have had a child, you have had a child. This cannot be erased.

Someone else said that there is no greatetr bond then between SOs. I disagree again. There is no greater bond than between a parent and child. This bond may even be one way (parent to child). In fact, it is possibly this onewayness (could not think of another word) that makes the connection so strong. A parent, in general, has such an uncoditional bond with their child with absolutely no expectation of anything in return. With an SO there is a two way bond and with a healthy relationship this twowayness (if I can make onewayness a word then why not twowayness) is needed.
The bond with an SO can so easily be broken. It begins to happen as soon as this twowayness ceases to exist or deteriorates. We see it all the time.
The bond with a child is never broken.
There is no greater pain in the world than seeing your own child suffer perhaps other than seeing your own child die. (thank god the previous statement does not come from experience)

SOs are meant to loose each other. It happens weveryday. It will continue to happen. At some point you will lose your SO or your SO will loose you. This is a normal life occurance. Of course loosing an SO during childbirth would be a tragically early separation from your SO but most people (and this is not empirical), after time (maybe a lot of time), eventually are able to move on.

Loosing a child is not normal. This should not happen, ever. This is not the natural course of nature. The pain that a parent must feel, which I hope to never know must be unbearable.

OK, so you will say "but the child is not born yet" or "but you don't know the child".
I may rationalize it like this as well but I am a man. I did not have the baby living in my body for the last 40 weeks. I did not have mornign sickenss becuase of the baby. I did not feel the baby move for the first time, from the inside, at around 16 to 20 weeks. I did not go to the doctor on a regular basis. I did not grow. I did not have to watch what I ingested (food, drink, or air) to ensure the baby was born healthy. I did not feel the baby's every movement later in the pregnancy. I did not know where in my body the baby's head, leg, arm, or but was (I don't know how my wife was able to tell the difference). I was not woken up in the middle of the night becuase the baby was squeezing my blatter. I did not have an arm or leg poke me so hard from the inside that roundness of my belly was replaced by the noticable shape of a potruding are or leg. I did not feed a baby from what I ate for 40 weeks. I did not incubate the life of another human being for 40 weeks. I did not have my water break. I did not go through hours of labour. I did not have to attempt to pass a baby through one of the smallest holes in my body.

I mention all these things to try to illustrate that the mother already has a bond/connection to that child.
When is the point that this unbreakable bond is forged.

I don't know. As a man, and a pretty logical type of person until the baby is born I would probably not have the same type of bond as a mother (and I could probably still never have that same bond).
But then again, what happens when I see the body of the dead baby. I know, it is hard to think about.
I think it would probably kill my wife to have to give birth to a baby that is already dead. You know that after a certain point you don't have an abortion anymore byt you have to deliver the baby.
Say for example that your wife (or you) wind out that you have cancer and it is pass the point in the pregnancy where they can abort the fetus and you choose to have chemo or a procedure that kills (for lack of being able to think of another word) the fetus - your wife (or you) will have to deliver the baby.


So I said all this and I still don't know what I would do in the situation. We can't know (even if you have talked about it) until faced with the decision. Hoepfully none of us will be faced with the decision.
(maybe I took the easy way out by not answering but I could definately see situations where I would make either decsion)
I will have to have the discussion with my wife.


Extra:
To illustrate the parent child bond somebody mentioned Sophie's choice (the situation was not the same though) with regards to choosing your life over your childs.
If someone came up to you with a gun and said "I will kill you or your child, you choose." I think the decision would be easy. Have him kill me instead of my child.

Sophie's choice was actually to choose which of her childre should live when forced into the decision by an SS officer (see the movie if you have not).
But I think the poster was just trying to point out that the decision we are talking about is "sophie's choice" type of decision.


Now I must do some work today.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman

Lady Sage

Gosh bless it all! I am still a Newb so I cant get to the fricken fracken Thread.
(rant ended life will now go on)

HoneyPot

What a difficult decision! I would hope that my SO would chose my life over the birth of a child. I am a woman. It made me think about people who have been in this situation. One person I know lost his sister to childbirth, but then again there was no chance they could save because of the blood loss. But what if there would have been a chance? I wonder what the husband would have picked?

__________________
Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.

Ustwo

For a child not yet born I would save my wife. She would most likely want to save the baby.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

deri

As a man with no kids, I am almost certain the selfish part of me will choose my wife over my unborn child. It would be interesting to see whether actual fathers are more altruistic.

m0rpheus

First of all I hope I'm never in the situation where I have to make that call, but honestly I can't vote. I dont know what I'd do.
It really would depend to, is it a fetus that's like a month or two old? I'd probably go with save the SO, yeah it's a shit choice but it happens.
Is it a baby that's ready to pop and I have to choose between the two? Honestly I dont know what I would choose.

__________________
"it never got weird enough for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

Nimetic

What a fucking dilemma. Pardon my language, but that's the only way I can put it.

Does anybody have any philosphy that helps here? I think I'd have to choose the mother, on the basis that (assumed) I have a trust reletionship with her, and that unlike the baby - I know 100% that she is an independant viable life. The viability and conscious state of the baby is an unknown.

Jumping forward to a position where the baby is three years old - at that later point I don't honestly think I could decide, unless the mother had a strong desire for the child to live in preference.

But if I was in a situation where I had to make a choice - it'd probably haunt me forever.

Derwood

I have 2 kids and would say with no question that I'd save my wife. I'm sure it would still be a difficult decision in the moment, but I can't imagine sacrificing my wife of 10 years (and mother to two kids) for an unborn child. I just can't.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

lurkette

Glad to see my hubby and I are on the same page. *whew* Even if it's a full-term baby, I would still make the same choice. One, I wouldn't want him to have to raise a kid by himself, and two, I'm a selfish bitch. I'd rather go through the grief together and start over again.

Let's dance, baby! Watch out for that mine over there....

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Eweser

I'm a female with no children (and not planning on having children) so take my opinion for just that....but I would hope my SO would choose the baby's life over my own. I know it would be a burden for him to raise the child alone, but I also am lucky to have a wonderful family who I know would help in any and every way possible. The baby deserves to have a good life, as I have had, and who knows what he/she might do with their life to help mankind.

__________________
"Whoever wrote this episode should die!"

pornclerk

I would hope that if my future husband ever had to chose between me and my kid, it would be the kid. Children should always be your first priority.

mandy

it would probably be the toughest decision one would ever have to make if thrown into a situation like that. (and i say thrown because people are never prepared for a situation like that)

as i'm sitting here, i'm trying to fathom what i would do if that were me...or if i were in that situation and i've come to the conclusion that there is no right or wrong way, because it is a lose lose situation. you either lose a SO or you lose a child...who will ever be up to making a decision like that?

also, in a situation like that, more children will not be on your mind at that time...all that you will be thinking boaut is the child that you are losing at that point in time. who knows what guilt you'll carry around with you for the rest of you life with either decision.

all you can do is hope and pray that you will never be faced with it and if you are, hope you have the strength and wisdom to lead you on the correct path, to make the proper choice and to make sure that you can live with whatever choice you make.

__________________
The Imagination equips us to see a reality we have yet to create

captobvious

I would definitely choose my wife if it were just up to me, but if she wanted to save the kid instead, I would respect her wishes. Of course, that's a lot easier said than done. Who knows what would happen if this situation actually did occur? I'm sure there would be a lot of factors that I'm not taking into account right now.

Suave

Logically, the baby is an unformed person. It is unknown, unattached to either parent, and thus is less valuable than the mother. In the situation though, I can't say that logic would prevail.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

MeltedMetalGlob

I voted to keep the baby over my SO. I might have voted differently if it was my first child, but I've already a daughter and there is nothing for me that is as great a feeling as being a parent.



The fact that my old lady's given me most of my gray hairs also might have something to do with it...

__________________
How's your mom, Ed?

EventHorizon

i would rather save my hypothetical SO's life rather than the baby's.

__________________
Does Marcellus Wallace have the appearance of a female canine? Then for what reason did you attempt to copulate with him as if he were a female canine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by canuckguy Pretty simple really, do your own thing as long as it does not fuck with anyone's enjoyment of life.

lunxpress

(Woman. Mother.)

Healing a baby’s death is no simple brush-off. Many people have suffered and never recovered from the absence and “what if” of not being able to bring a pregnancy to fruition. Losing a child can’t always be healed and “fixed’ by the introduction of a replacement.

If I were faced with this decision, however, I would chose the connected mid-life adult, so as not tamper with the multiple lives that have already become dependent upon, associated w and connected to them. I would want to base my decision on what would cause the least amount of immediate pain, not whether I can pass genes into an imagined future.

telekinetic

I would have let my wife make the decision. If she was unable, I would have done everything possible to give the best chance to save both of them, even if that decreased the chances of saving one or the other...IE, I'd pick something that was 75%/75% for both rather than 100%/0% for either.

If that choice was unavailable, and it was 'choose one, we can't save both' I would have saved my wife.

__________________
twisted no more

genuinegirly

I'm glad to see that this thread has been revived, since my thoughts on the matter have changed. In any case, I see the proposed scenario as a major tragedy which would have a large effect on the family involved.

One of my cousins has an ongoing and a seemingly incurable case of MRSA. She recently became pregnant - with twins. We all knew that it would be a high-risk pregnancy. Well, sure enough the MRSA spread to the fetuses. One of them was infected badly and died in the womb. She decided to have a surgery to remove the one so there would be less of a risk of the MRSA spreading to the other. During the surgery, things went wrong. She lost a lot of blood and her life was on the line. By the end, her life was saved but both of her potential children were lost. With them gone, she was able to undergo a substantial antibiotic regime, with the hope of saving her life as well. This is a woman who struggled with infertility issues for most of her adult life, is in her late 30's, and does not necessarily plan on having any children again in the future. Her life is valuable.

In my cousin's case, her life was at risk, but so were the lives of her two unborn children. In our family, there was less emotional attachment to the "potentials"than to the mother. There would have been a lot of broken hearts if it had gone another way, and the lives of her children would have been tumultuous and uncertain without the presence of their loving mother.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

telekinetic

Another real-life example: A close friend of mine developed pneumonia at about 26 weeks. They had limited options for treating it, but 26 weeks is extremely early for the baby to survive, so they did what they could and waited as long as possible to do an emergency c-section (I thinks he got to 30 weeks).

They had waited so long that she had to be put into an induced coma on a ventilator for two weeks post-delivery, but it was long enough for the baby to survive with no ill effects, and she did fully recover, but there was a chance she might not have. That is why I said, I'd take the middle ground--obviously at 26 weeks they could have done a c-section and given her 'the good meds' and she would have been fine, but a 26 week preemie is generally going to have a pretty rough start on life, so they waited, compromising the mom's health.

Things are rarely as black and white as the poll makes them seem.

__________________
twisted no more

Daniel_

I don't know. I don't think there is ever likely to be a real case where you can be confident that you are choosing A over B.

It's easy to say "pick the wife over the child", but from an evolutionary point of view, my genes are better served picking the child (assuming it is mine) over my wife (who may not be able or desirous of having a second try at a child after this trauma).

Also there's the issue that the incidence of relationship failure after this sort of situation is vastly greater than in "ordinary" relationships; so you have the disaster of a dead baby, followed almost inevitably by the divorce.

Saving the baby means I don't have to deal with the recrimination and hurt of having to tell my wife that I killed her baby, I get the support of her family, my family, her insurance, the state...

I never ever want to be in this situation, and hope nobody I know is.

__________________

╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine
╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

chinese crested

The woman of course has the right to choose. Mayhap it would be sensible for expectant mothers to make those choices when they are in good health - so that their SO does not have to be in such a terrible position. I have friends who have 'no heroic measures' in their medical notes - perhaps similar should be discussed with parents to be. Belt and braces. Had I been in that situation, like many others I would have had to do what was in the best interests of my children. There would have been no safe family member for them to go to - and always the fear they would be placed with an 'unsafe' adult.