Random discussion -- kids

Well, I don’t have children, but I do have a dog that is my BABY. If it came down to saving my fiancé or the dog from a burning house, I’m getting my dog! I’m going to assume my fiancé can get his own butt out of the house. Whereas my dog likely couldn’t.

My spouse is the most important relationship I have because our marriage is the center of our family, but I would hands down save my child. My husband has had 36 (mostly great) years on this planet. He has had the opportunity to grow and learn and love. I would miss him like hell, but I would never take the possibility of those life experiences away from my 8 year old. However I also would never consider having another child if one of my children died tragically.

My husband and I just had a baby (she's 5 days old) and I would without a doubt save my baby.

View Quoted Comment Congratulations on the new baby!!

View Quoted Comment I agree with this!

Hands down, definitely my kids. For the same reason as stated above. My child has just started their life and I’m not about to take that away. And I’m not sure how I’d drag my husband out, He’s way bigger than me!

View Quoted Comment Thank you 💕

Save the kid. I don’t see how as a mom I would ever be able to forgive my husband for making that choice and saving me. It would ruin the relationship anyway.


Frankly that professor’s answer is owing my mind and I’d venture a he didn’t have kids, or at least HOPE he does, ha. I can see making that choice but that justification, whew. He thinks a kid is replaceable? Just have another? No sir, that is not how any of this works

View Quoted Comment

Oh wow, congratulations!!!

View Quoted Comment Thank you 💗

**blowing my mind

Baby, not even a question

I don't have children, and never plan to. But I don't see how anyone could choose their spouse in this situation.

Not only has the child not had the opportunity to experience life, but you created that life... and you wouldn't save it? That seems legitimately insane to me.

Also... "you can just have another." What the actual? Tell that to someone who has actually lost a child. You can tell that man didn't have kids. Children are not interchangeable. They are unique individuals who can't be replaced, the same as any other person. What an absolutely sociopathic explanation.

That’s a pretty common exercise, it’s not set up for “right” answer, but to get people to examine their ideas.
The reality is, when a house catches fire, no one really knows how they will react. People run out of their houses to save themselves and leave spouses and kids behind even.
Humans have a very strong drive to protect their offspring, though - we want to make sure our dna makes it through the next generation, and the child carries the dna.We just can’t know - once I was in the vicinity of an explosion and while everyone was running away I froze. Someone pulled my arm and that got me moving. Hopefully if it happens again I have the sense to run!

View Quoted Comment He was probably trying to start some philosophical discussion about objectivism - at least he didn’t do the trolley problem!

View Quoted Comment

Yeah! I think the burning house example was supposed to be more metaphorical rather than literal. I was definitely raised to rank your husband/wife ahead of your children. My parents gave my siblings and I everything and loved us so well growing up, but we still fell in line after their marriage - and they will tell you that even now! Not to be mistaken with choosing a man or woman over your own kids, but biblically speaking, your family umbrella should be Christ - husband/wife - children. Looking back, I really appreciate my parents demonstrated the importance of their marriage rather than putting my siblings and I above all else. I think that was the point of his professor's burning house metaphor. Just my opinion on it, though! Everyone looks at these things different!

View Quoted Comment I think that varies by denomination, though - I grew up in a very conservative church and it was frequently talked about that, for example, if your wife was in childbirth and it was a choice, that the “right” thing to do was save the child. (Which is another very simplistic way, a dr isn’t going to stand there and wait if it’s a split second decision!)
The burning house scenario is used often in philosophy classes, like the trolley or drowning child scenario. It’s designed to throw everyone off and eventually lead to discussions about moral choices, the greater good, objectivism...the things that drunk college students wax on about LOL

View Quoted Comment I completely agree. Although as parents it is your responsibility to love your children, provide for them, teach them, etc. I completely agree that your marriage comes first. Your marriage is the foundation of your family. If you do not nurture that relationship above all others, the entire family unit will crumble. This recent development of “mom shaming” baby groups has really wreaked havoc on healthy parenting, and has helped to create a culture where parents (especially mothers) feel that they are “bad parents” if they don’t eat, sleep, and breathe for their children. It is not healthy for your entire life to revolve around your kid(s)- for the parents or the kids! It is quite beneficial to teach children the importance of fostering the romantic relationship in a marriage, in order to keep the entire family strong and intact. And it shows them that when they are parents, they need (and deserve to have) their own identities; their own wants and needs outside of being a parent. Besides, kids grow up and move on and start their own families. If your entire existence is tied to your children, where does that leave you when they move on? It’s important for you to continue to nurture your marriage, because some day it will be just you and your partner again.
My fiancé and I have discussed this at length, and we both agree that our marriage will always come first. If given the choice mentioned above, my FH would 100% choose to save my life over the child’s during childbirth, no question.

View Quoted Comment

Whew -- I was thinking of the gentle way to address the childbirth scenario, but you hit it right on the head! My future husband and I have have discussed this scenario as well, and he would absolutely save my life over our baby's, and I would want him to! Not that something like this wouldn't be absolutely traumatic and horrendous, and I know we would be devastated, but I know he wouldn't even give it a second thought, save my life.

As for the other things, I absolutely agree! It's so common for parents to lose their identity outside from being a parent. My fiancé and I aren't totally dead set on becoming parents at all, for that main reason. I would love to one day be a mother and see him be a father, and I'm confident we would be great parents, but we aren't willing to halt or flip our life upside down in order to be parents. Ideally, we would have a cool kid who kind of becomes our little sidekick LOL. But I completely agree!

View Quoted Comment

This. I was raised Christian and so this was taught to me on how to do it. Growing up with a single mother who literally lost herself being our mother and would've benefited us all by still having her own identity, I knew what kind of parent I DIDN'T want to be. I adore my boys and do everything for them but I'm ME first.

Initially, I was outraged that any other answer could be right other than saving my child. But like you, I started to understand what it was really about. My sons know that while their father and I love them and will protect them to the ends of the Earth, they do not come before all else. There are some things that are kid-friendly and there are some things that aren't, that's life. You don't give birth just to be a slave to your children.

I loved your response!