Yes. I would try.

I have kids. I know if that was my child I would want someone to help them out, and what goes around comes around. I'd happily take care of an abandoned child even if it did add hardship.

I would feel morally obligated to help the child - even if I was pissed off about the situation - its the right thing to do....

Yes, I would try. If my abilities and resources allowed me to care for it. Growing up, you would know (for my own personal satisfaction) that even trapped on an island, I made a difference in someone else's life.

Regarding the person in the burning car, for police and firefighters the standard is that you help without endangering yourself. Otherwise you put two lives at risk. However, I don't think that would stop me. But weigh out the facts rationally. If you are the family breadwinner with four children and a spouse, they need their father. You save the dumbass kid who crashes his own car recklessly, and he goes on to be a senator who cuts budgets and has an affair with his pageboy while promoting faithbased family values.

As crompsin said, you could eat the child.

Where did the abstract hypothetical homosexual burning inside the car for his sins come from?

Ahhh...he was probably ostracized and burnt at the stake for commiting
the ultimate sin of sporting a dorky, page-boy-bowl haircut.

The original scenario has some flaws.
1) If you are walking around "one day", how would the baby have gotten there? It couldn't survive more than a day probably without food.
2) Who says the two of you have those rights?

I can't speak to any sort of wide-scale universal ethical truths. I would try to raise the baby.

A more important question ;): would Hitler raise the baby?

Actually, he would. If you look at his modus operandi, it's quite clear. Hitler Youth?

Humor backfire.

More like presumption of specific direction of humorous intent backfire. I left it open ended for a reason.

There is no way in hell that I could leave a baby/child to die; I would try my best to care for the child.

This reminds me of one of the moral questions that was presented when I was in junior high (middle school): Two people are the only survivers of an accident in the desert. They have no food or water, and there is no chance of them being saved by a search & rescue party. A man who lives in the desert finds them, and explains that he has only barely enough food and water for two people to reach the nearest settlement. Three people will deplete the supplies too quickly and all three will die before reaching the settlement. The person who remains behind will have no food or water, and will die before the other two reach the settlement.

My moral code requires me to care for those relatives who have matching blood type, on alternate weeks. If they've lent me money. : >