This question particularly goes out to mothers or rather women, More specifically,those who have kids,desire kids,Work with Kids,Have a passion for Kids,Women. based on a recent survey I and a companion Carried out on the question "During Child Birth,If medical Problems were to arise and a choice had to be made,either the Mother or the Child survives.One alone can be saved and one has to die.If there was absolutely No choice, What would You do? Who Would you Choose.Your life or Your babies own.you may also add a reason to your response if You wish.
The only rational choice is that the mother survives because the likelihood of having another is possible.
However, if the mother cannot be saved beyond all means, then the child is to be saved.
The moral dilemma you've created doesn't specify the problem, but only gives the choice.
Been a long time since I was in a labor and delivery room. Can't remember exactly but imagine they have you sign a consent form with that very question.
I agree with Cags I would save the mother's life.
I've watched too many movies where the mother dies in childbirth and the father flips out and holds it against the child for the rest of her life.
It totally sucks.
I pray i wouldnt have to I just tend to think how difficult or detrimental that decision is for women who have to face such.I cant fathom the thoughts that run through their minds
@mighty mom...true that could be one scenario with the father flipping out, but what about the mother having let her Child die,she may or maynot necessarily be the same after, the connection with the father may contain resentment especially if he was the one who made the call on who should live.She may be angry at him for letting her child die.So it could occur in both ways.
Although logically I can see the argument for saving the mother, I cannot see what mother or mother to be would choose to save herself over her baby. Mothers would do anything for their children, even give their own life.
I would give my life for any of my 5 babies, whether it be in childbirth or anytime after.
The frame of mind of the mother is purely emotional during the birthing process. Under no circumstances should she be making any decisions on pure emotion.
Emotion isn't rational.
I'm not sure any decision I've made since having my children has been completely rational. Emotion is what you raise kids with... if I went on rational then I likely wouldn't have had them in the first place.
That being said I've already lost one child... I know rationally that I would not emotionally survive the loss of another. Therefore if it is between me and the baby then the baby wins. The hubby already knows this and he's medical POA for me.
I'm glad you found it funny.
I highly doubt that.
You lead yourself with emotion Melissa. You're a woman. Emotion is always first and foremost to rationale. You just happen to have an advantage over other women, because you are somewhat rational in conversations compared to many others.
I think you're strong enough mentally to handle it, as is any woman. I know it would be difficult, but it certainly do one thing and that's test your faith.
I'm sorry to hear that. You take from the world, yet leave only a trace of yourself behind. Do you not value your life? What about the other children in which you do have? How much more do you have to teach them? So, they are open minded?
Just a thought.
Eh? Women are as capable of thinking rationally as men y'know.
I can't imagine any doctor looking down at a pregnant woman in labour and saying, "Look there's a serious problem here. I can only save you or the baby . What's it going to be...?" It'd be almost impossible to make a decision like that in those circumstances and it's equally impossible to say what you'd do without being in those circumstances.
As far as I know, the woman's life is saved as matter of course.
And, I didn't say they didn't. I said they lead by emotion first and foremost. What do you think your response came from? Rational thinking? Nice try.
Yes, some are capable, just like I told Melissa. I didn't deny it. So your post addresses what exactly?
This would depend on the doctor, now would it? I can see some idiot asking. Who knows why s/he would ask, but you can better believe some doctor would take the time to ask it.
Yes, because it's the rational choice to make.
I think my response came as much from rational thought as yours did. All thought is mixed with emotion no matter what sex we are. I just wondered why you think women, in particular, would *always lead by emotion first and foremost*. You said Melissa was* somewhat rational*...giving her an advantage over other women, which implies that most women aren't very rational at all! That's how I read it anyhow.
In this scenario? It should be left up to the doctor. The father shouldn't have any say in the matter either. The only rational decision must be weighed objectively.
If the mother says that she wants to sacrifice her life for that of the child, isn't rational, considering she can make more providing there are no further complications with the birth. The child will be a still born.
The father cannot make the decision either because it would be based on pure emotion also. Not rational decision making.
The doctor gets paid to make these decisions. If some doctor decided to let you and save the child because of religious belief that the baby must be born, then s/he would be condemning a woman who can reproduce another child(again depending on complications) to death. If it's a boy or girl it doesn't matter.
If the doctor thinks out the situation rationally, then the child would not win in a survival battle.
It is not known what the problem is- You're just given a choice.
Rational really doesn't matter. And I can tell you most mothers would make the same decision regardless of if they were in childbirth at that moment. Ask me now, ask me before I had kids, ask me when I was in labor, my answer would have been the same. Save the baby. Parenting is emotional. It's love. It's giving everything you have to your children- even the ones yet to be born.
And I think given the chance, most fathers would sacrifice themselves to save their wives and unborn babies.
Babies are not replaceable. Yes, if you save the mother, she could have another. But it wouldn't replace the one lost. I think a mother is completely capable of making that decision during childbirth.
sadie, I agree with you. I am mainly a person who operates very much on reason and logic FIRST, including when it came/comes to most things with my children. With the scenario in question, though - no. The love I have for my children IS an emotional thing, so I'd go with doing what mothers in general would most often do, which would be to save my baby. Who knows, though - maybe there's something very rational in believing that having thirty( or whatever) years to live is better than having no years to live at all.
My husband (now ex-husband) and I have always agreed that if we were in a situation (like being in a sinking boat and having to decide who to save - one of us or one of the kids), we'd always go for saving the child(children) and letting one or both of us go, Yes, it would stink; and yes, I'd worry about what would happen to my child. Still, there is no way in hell that I'd ever save my own (or my husband's) life over the life of one of the children (even now that they're grown). In fact, I'd venture to guess that in the face of the adrenaline that kicks in under extreme circumstances, all "reasonable" thinking would likely to out the window and most people would go with the instinctive choice. (I once thought I had a good, sensible, reasonable, plan for if anybody tried to take my pocketbook; and that plan was "they can just have it, because it isn't worth risking my life over." Well, someone tried one night, and my good sense went out the window. Instead, I, in all my five-foot-one-ness/hundred-six-poundness was all set to a) get a good look at the guy's face and b) fight him for the bag. More than once in my life I've seen what adrenaline does to reasoned plans.
Good question, which is the right answer? I have also lost one child, a twin in fact, but I shudder at the thought of leaving her and the rest of them with someone else to raise them up. I mean, I would feel guilty and not rest in peace if I left them as children. Yet again, I'd want to save my baby.
It's hard to say what I'd do, I guess I'd have to be there to be able to decide.
Sandy, I think you're very right (and wise) about a person's not really knowing what she would do unless/until faced with the situation. That's how it is with most difficult situations, and the world is so full of people who are so sure they know what they'd do without ever having been in one situation or another.
these responses are quite insightful,thank you guys for your input
by Patricia Scott 10 years ago
Is there ever ta time when abortion is acceptable?I thought I knew my answer to this question until I googled the word abortion and clicked images. Now....not so much.
by SparklingJewel 14 years ago
Though this is still in the religion forum, it is also a political issue and a spiritual issue (which to me has some additional/different attributes than as a religious issue)As a spiritual issue, for me, believing what I do from my years of experience, study and practice of spiritual things...the...
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Presently, a woman has, by law, the freedom to end her pregnancy. After all, its her life and her body. Is this issue, free-choice abortion, a matter of politics? Social science/politics is about what is good for society as a whole. Is abortion good or bad in the light of what is best for...
by dailytop10 11 years ago
Save the mother or the child?Here's the situation. Your wife is about to give birth but the doctor can't guarantee that both she and the baby will survive. He then ask you who to prioritize. Will you choose the woman you hold so dear or the innocent baby who of course has all the rights to live and...
by Holle Abee 13 years ago
I just read a post suggesting that women seeking an abortion should first see a 4D ultrasound of the baby to help them make a more informed decision.What do you think about this idea?
by Dave Mathews 11 years ago
Abortion and euthanasia, and suicide all require a cessation of life. For abortion it is a requirement for the cessation of life of the fetus. For euthanasia and suicide, it is a requirement by an already living and viable human being for life to come to an end, or to bring their life to an...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID
|This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
|This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
|HubPages Google Analytics
|HubPages Traffic Pixel
|This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
|Amazon Web Services
|Google Hosted Libraries
|Google Custom Search
|Google AdSense Host API
|Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace
|We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
|Conversion Tracking Pixels
|We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
|Author Google Analytics
|Amazon Tracking Pixel