Mother, wife or child . ..
 

You are standing on the side of a raging river swollen by flood, the bridge has been swept away whilst your family were crossing, you only have enough time to save one of the following:

Mother
Wife
Child

Who do you choose to save and why ?

Child. It is part of you and your future.

Child. wife and mother will pass sooner than the child.

I don't have a child. Wife, because my mother is a very very good swimmer

Mother, because I have neither a wife nor a child.

Whew, that was easier than I thought.

same here (mother).

i dont have wife/kid.


if i had all 3, i would go with my wife.

Child

I have no children, so this is an either-or question for me....

And my answer is: Wife.

Sorry, Mom. ;)

Child.

I save myself. Screw the rest.
I'm a firm believer in survival of the fittest.

Easy one...child. I have twins so I'd be in a pickle, that's for sure.

Child

You tell your wife to hold on to your child and then you save your wife. Which in turn saves your child.

You tell you mother that you will come back for her and she knows that you will. So then she will try to make it herself which in turn saves you from attempting to come back.

Who is the hero. You? Your mother? Your wife?

mother...no wife and child yet :)

You hollow out your mother and make a canoe. Paddle the rest of the family to safety.

Child. The wife would understand.

If this situation were to actually occur, you probably wouldn't be given a choice; both mother and wife would be trying to get the child to safety; if you rescued one of them and the child died, they make you wish you'd died too.

I agree that the child is the only way to go. A mother's love for her child would not allow you to save her instead of the child. What an aweful decision to have to make, though.

How about we post whether you have to choose between a hot dog, a hamgburger, or a corn dog for lunch. :)

Definitely my baby!

Lol..... hollow out your mother and make her into a canoe..... SOOOO wrong!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

Child. Still has its whole life ahead of it.

Without question, you save your child. As badflsh said, it still has its entire life ahead of it. And a parent's love for their child is so strong that your spouse/mother would understand and agree with the decision.

Hamburger. No question

Child, and hamburger.

-Mikey

well, i have no wife nor child yet, so it would have to be my mother.

but if it were up to that, i'd have my mother take my child, i'll hold my wifey, kiss her our last kiss, and die holding her.

but in light of this wife/child decision. let's change the scenario, if you may, and snoop, i don't mean to steal your thread, just tryin to put a dif in point of view to it.

let's say that your wife is giving birth to a child, and because of complications during labor, either the child is to go or your wife. i would choose my wife as we could try again with the child. plus with the way kids are growing up these days, you'll never know what you are saving. at least with the wife, you know.

tho it may seem different, i see it as potentially the same.

childburger?

Child, no doubt about it! The adults are far more likely to have a chance at staying calm and surviving.

I don't have a wife and i don't have a child so i guess i would be saving mother.

However, if i had all three i would definitely save the child, no question.

If I had a child, I don't believe I'd forgive myself if I let my wife, my child, or my mother die. If there were two of the three going to die, I'd make sure to try to save at least two of them at the loss of my life.

Hamburger, more to it.

Definately the child. As a wife and mother that is what I'd choose. You couldn't drag me across the river if my child was still on the other side. I would insist on the child.

wife

everyone else is expendible

child, but my wife will insist I jump back in and join her in our death.

I'll second this. And the reason for this is that the child has the most ahead of him and is the least corrupt of the group.

Btw, I am amazed at how many people cannot grasp the concept of a hypothetical situation.

I'd be OK with any one of the three.
People are all of equal value aren't they?

:lol: twisted and wrong but oh so funny!

I'd save the child. The child would have so many more years to live than the wife or the mother

Wrong? I disagree. You couldn't exactly make a decent-sized canoe out a child, so you'd have to use your mom...unless your kid is one of those really huge ones.

Wife so i can produce more off spring :0

I Did this exact thing in psychology but it was a bit different. it went like WHo would u save ur 1 yr old baby or ur 3 yr old baby
?

Re: Mother, wife or child . ..
 

Easy, in descending order of priority: child, wife, mother.

If I take the wife first, she'll kill me, so that's no good.

Mother is my past.

Woot! I only have a mother. Well, not woot...killing my mom and all... but you get the picture.

Sounds good to me.

In all seriousness, I don't think I could realistically say. It would have to be a reflexive thing at the exact point of the crisis. It's not anything I could plan for...

child. It'd be great to be rid of the others.

Rofl

Child... it's what the wife and mother would want.

Child.

It's sortuf unfair to save someone who's already lived awhile. It's the childs turn to live. Wife and Mom already had their fun.

get the wife to hold on to the child then save em both

I'd save the child too, in the given scenario. However, if I'd be given the choice, I'd let the wife and the kid save themselves, as I'm left behind with mother to die

My wife would kill me if I sacraficed my (future) child to save her, and my mother would kill me if I sacraficed wife and child for her.

I would save my wife first. My kids are extremely important to me, but my wife is such an important part of my life that I can't imagine being without her.

I would say the wife. Yes it sounds mean to give up your child, but with your wife you can have more.

I'd save the child as it's carrying both of our genes.

My wife is more important to me than child or mother. First of all, I've made a promise to cherish her. Second, to be a decent husband your wife has to be the most important person in your life. Finally, I love her more.

It's much harder, of course, to be patient and kind than to rescue someone from drowning.

In our culture it's worth saying explicitly that all human life is valuable and important, without consideration of age or achievement.

I read most of the replies expecting well thoughtout answers.
People, it's a hypothetical situation... you are suposed to put more thought into it than "I don't have a ____, thus I save my (family member which you do have)".

Assuming I have the same, 100% chance of saving any of the three, I would save the child. The child has the most life left to live. The life that has already been created between my wife and I is more important than any life we could live on to create. Aside from that, I will have things to remember my lost mother and wife with, but not the child.

wife....mother would be old and almost dead anyway....if i save my wife i will have the chance to make new kids and if i save my kid and he/she is a fuck-up then i'm screwed.

I guess if you saved the wife you could aways have another child, but then she'd be very tramatized and would probably divorce you cuz you didn't save the child and your dad would be all pissed off at you for not saving your mom and write you out of the will. The child would be so messed up from seeing his mom drown that he or she would turn into some kind of psycho and kill you in your sleep in 10 years. Soooooo... I guess I'd have to let them all drown and go out with my dad and chase babes...

child

child is lighter

Wife. I love her more than any other. It would be very difficult to lose my child, but we'll make another one and hope for the best. I don't think I'd have the strength to raise my child without my wife. Or perhaps even the strength to go on at all without her.

Well, which would you save?

I'd save the one closest then probably die trying to save the other.

you can give all the rational arguments why you would do one or the other, but the situation does not lend itself to careful deliberation, so I can honestly not say which I would choose.

Even circumstances might be important, is it just simply this event, or a global catastrophe that threatens to wipe out mankind? are there any other people present? is there a way to catch them later on down that river? etc

so how about I adjust a rope to my waist, jump in, swim across and then tell them to either tie it on a tree or rock, and come one at a time, or just all grab the rope and I pull them across

As a father, my love for my children is far and above any love I have for anyone else, including my wife and mother. Assuming this is hypothetical, and I love my wife still (we are getting divorced) there is still more love for my children than for my wife. The lives we created are far and above more precious than any bond that we share(d).

The thought that you would save your wife because you can always have more children, is basically flawed. What is to say you save your wife, and because of the trauma of losing her child, she loses interest in having more children. What if she is so distraught by the loss of her child that she takes her own life, or dies from simple heartbreak.... though these are extremes, they are still possibilities. Do not assume that because you save your wife, you can have more children. Save the life of the one you already have.

Besides, there is always a chance that you can find another woman you will love, and have more children with another woman. This is not meant to minimize the love that a man and wife share, but merely to show that there is another option.

Again, the love I have for my children by far outweighs the love I have for any other person. That I would let my child die to save my wife or mother is totally unacceptable.

think on this, If your wife were to abuse your child, would you get rid of the child because you love your wife more than your child? I think not, and if you do, you have a problem. I see little difference in the basic reasoning, you protect your offspring before anything or anyone else.

Save the kid, let the women die

You sure that big ass 6 ft. 8 inch frame would even float? You might want to reconsider your options.....:lol:

Assuming I was married and had a kid, the child. Assuming I was just married, my wife. Assuming I'm actually an accomplished octopus, all of them, and the neighbors too.

Right on. Ditto that. Mom will understand, or else dad will save her.

No question, my child. My wife would never forgive me if I let our boy die when I had the chance to save him and I would never forgive her if she saved me over him. The importance of our child is something inexplicable but certain.

My mother passed away a few years ago, so I guess it would have to be my mother-in-law, and the real question there is not whether I would save her (and the little dog she takes EVERYWHERE with her) but whether or not I would push her in. :)

ok i would save my child first, my hubby second( on second thought i could replace him,) and i would push my mom to her death!!1

Like most, child then wife then mother. But since this is all hypothetical, I'd just teleport all three of them to safety.

wife

Child of course, but I agree I would give my life for both my SO and child to survive.

hey, kids are easy to make. I'll take the non-existant wife. We can always make some more children (sorry mom).

let wife and child cross and sacrafice yourself.. if not that.. the child

leave em all
collect the insurance $$ on the wife
and move to the beach and bang hookers

Seeing as i have no child or spouse, and my mother would be difficult to move swiftly... I'll just grab my Hal and run.

I would save my wife. More children could be made and by that time my mother would probably be old enough where most days are painful. It would just be like before good medicine and medical knowledge when there was a low survival rate of children. Maybe the next one coulda flown over the river on its own, never know. Not to mention how traumatized the child would be, there is no guarantee it will grow up to be the same thing you envisioned. Could just be one miserable life.

Child, because she would do the same, and that's the way we would want it to be, and that's how my mom would want it to be. The world changes after you have a kid, you are willing to sacrafice yourself for them....it's weird and great all at the same time

who: child
why: simple, the mother and the wife have had the oportunity to live life, even if it is a protracted one. The child on the other hand has had no chance.

If I was a real sicko, I would let darwanism decide. :)

Wife, because she would kill me if I let her die...

At first I thought this was an easy one. I don't have a child so that takes it down to wife or mother. Wife being the obvious choice because of age etc. But then I remembered my wife is a fatalist and would be just as happy dead while my mother would enjoy every second of life she had left so I guess I would have to say mother.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Exactly.

That's odd - that someone could perfectly articulate my thoughts. I guess I'm not that unique. Or tardka isn't...

Definitely wife. She is the one I chose to be with and the one closest to me. While the loss of a child and mother would be horrible, the loss of my wife would be worse.