Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Pregnant Woman Or Baby? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who Will You Save?
    Pregnant Woman.
    75.00%
    Baby.
    25.00%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A healthy 6-month pregnant woman and her 2-year-old healthy baby are trapped in crashed car. It is about to explode. You are the only passerby. Any other help is too far away to arrive in time.

    You can only save one of them.


    Who will you save?


    P.S.

    My mistake about the baby's age - it's been rectified. The baby is 2 years old.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Baby would probably be easier to rescue and I imagine the mother would want me to rescue the baby, so that one. If the mother is easier to rescue though, then I'd rescue her.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If she has a 3 month old baby, she can only really be a maximum of 8 about weeks pregnant and there is no way of knowing if that pregnancy is viable.

    I would save the baby. As a mother, I would want someone to save my baby before me so I would assume she would feel the same.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1on4)
    If she has a 3 month old baby, she can only really be a maximum of 8 about weeks pregnant and there is no way of knowing if that pregnancy is viable.

    I would save the baby. As a mother, I would want someone to save my baby before me so I would assume she would feel the same.
    I think OP means that the lady is pregnant with another child (not pregnant with the 3 month old).

    In that case, I think I would save the pregnant woman, as two lives could then be potentially saved, rather than one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    I think OP means that the lady is pregnant with another child (not pregnant with the 3 month old).

    In that case, I think I would save the pregnant woman, as two lives could then be potentially saved, rather than one.
    Yes, I know. I think you have misunderstood. If the woman has a 3 month old baby, she will be very early on in the second pregnany and at such an early stage there is no way of knowing if that pregnancy is viable.

    I would still save the 3 month old baby. Most parents would die to protect their child - Mick Philpott excluded.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Out of curiosity, is there any reason why you're making these threads? (Just wanna know, not having a dig, maybe I could learn something)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1on4)
    Yes, I know. I think you have misunderstood. If the woman has a 3 month old baby, she will be very early on in the second pregnany and at such an early stage there is no way of knowing if that pregnancy is viable.

    I would still save the 3 month old baby. Most parents would die to protect their child - Mick Philpott excluded.
    (Original post by 1on4)
    If she has a 3 month old baby, she can only really be a maximum of 8 about weeks pregnant and there is no way of knowing if that pregnancy is viable.

    I would save the baby. As a mother, I would want someone to save my baby before me so I would assume she would feel the same.
    (Original post by thegodofgod)
    I think OP means that the lady is pregnant with another child (not pregnant with the 3 month old).

    In that case, I think I would save the pregnant woman, as two lives could then be potentially saved, rather than one.

    That's entirely my fault - I'll redress that silly error.
    Offline

    15
    Well... ignoring the fact that a woman with a 3 month old being pregnant at all is almost biologically impossible, and ignoring the fact that even if it wasn't - she probably wouldn't know about it herself, let alone you being able to tell - I'd still save the baby.

    My reasoning being:

    - The baby won't remember the death of its' mother or have to live with the guilt, it gets a "clean slate" in life.

    - The mother would likely be so devastated at the loss of her 3 month old baby, and so racked with guilt over being saved while it died, that she may well miscarry and if not, she would be an emotional wreck and not much use to the unborn baby

    - if the mother is OK with being saved over her three month old baby ... ... she's not the sort of person I'd be concerned with risking myself to save, let alone sacrificing a child.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sufistic)
    Out of curiosity, is there any reason why you're making these threads? (Just wanna know, not having a dig, maybe I could learn something)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's chat - it's meant to be a bit of fun, whilst providing useful/insightful entertainment.

    What did you think the reason was?

    P.S.

    Many who question the threads, instead of actually answering them, seem to find it hard to understand that difficult choices have to be made sometimes and whilst some of the scenarios may be limited/unrealistic/hypothetical, it still exercises judgment and reasoning skills, whilst providing light entertainment.

    Additionally, I'm also passing time (whilst I have it).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Well... ignoring the fact that a woman with a 3 month old being pregnant at all is almost biologically impossible, and ignoring the fact that even if it wasn't - she probably wouldn't know about it herself, let alone you being able to tell - I'd still save the baby.

    My reasoning being:

    - The baby won't remember the death of its' mother or have to live with the guilt, it gets a "clean slate" in life.

    - The mother would likely be so devastated at the loss of her 3 month old baby, and so racked with guilt over being saved while it died, that she may well miscarry and if not, she would be an emotional wreck and not much use to the unborn baby

    - if the mother is OK with being saved over her three month old baby ... ... she's not the sort of person I'd be concerned with risking myself to save, let alone sacrificing a child.
    Firstly, it is quite possible the mother could be pregnant again and would know it. Why you think its biologically impossible i don't know.
    Secondly, guilt (or any other state of emotional stress) does not cause miscarriages.

    But I agree with everything else you said. OP, regardless of the childs age I would always save them.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanSupremacist)
    It's chat - it's meant to be a bit of fun, whilst providing useful/insightful entertainment.

    What did you think the reason was?

    P.S.

    Many who question the threads, instead of actually answering them, seem to find it hard to understand that difficult choices have to be made sometimes and whilst some of the scenarios may be limited/unrealistic/hypothetical, it still exercises judgment and reasoning skills, whilst providing light entertainment.

    Additionally, I'm also passing time (whilst I have it).
    I thought you were just bored or something. But the paragraph in bold makes me see it in a different way. Kudos!

    People might mix names with realities - they may simply give an answer, but how many of them would actually do what they said in that hypothetical situation?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by 1on4)
    Firstly, it is quite possible the mother could be pregnant again and would know it. Why you think its biologically impossible i don't know.
    Secondly, guilt (or any other state of emotional stress) does not cause miscarriages.

    But I agree with everything else you said. OP, regardless of the childs age I would always save them.
    It's possible but highly unlikely. It would be rare for ovulation to have returned at all 3 months post-partum and it's also unusual for a pregnancy to be discovered before 3 to 5 weeks - which would make her pregnant at 8/9 weeks post partum to be aware of the pregnancy at that point. So yes possible but... highly unlikely. If breastfeeding, fertility can take a year or longer to return. You'd think womenfolk would be taught about this stuff!

    Also, high levels of psychological stress have been shown to as much as double the risk of miscarriage - and I can't think of anything much more stressful than being pulled from a car only to see your baby trapped inside as it explodes...

    this is a really grim thread, OP. And I just saw your other "trapped in a car" scenario! What is it with you and killing 3 month old babies?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    It's possible but highly unlikely. It would be rare for ovulation to have returned at all 3 months post-partum and it's also unusual for a pregnancy to be discovered before 3 to 5 weeks - which would make her pregnant at 8/9 weeks post partum to be aware of the pregnancy at that point. So yes possible but... highly unlikely. If breastfeeding, fertility can take a year or longer to return. You'd think womenfolk would be taught about this stuff!

    Also, high levels of psychological stress have been shown to as much as double the risk of miscarriage - and I can't think of anything much more stressful than being pulled from a car only to see your baby trapped inside as it explodes...

    this is a really grim thread, OP. And I just saw your other "trapped in a car" scenario! What is it with you and killing 3 month old babies?
    I've sorted out the ages.

    I have nothing against 3-month-old babies lol. But I'll try to make more upbeat threads later on
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The pregnant mother, simply because otherwise a husband (assumption) somewhere would lose a wife and a child, making life an awful lot more difficult than still having his wife and losing a child.

    Also, they can always make more children
    Offline

    15
    Well the change just makes it easier - all of my earlier reasoning applies, plus 2 is basically the cutest age. Everyone would have to save the 2 year old, they'd not be able to resist.

    Although, a 2 year old would probably spend months wondering where its mum had gone. They can't understand the concept of death so would just assume abandonment :bawling:.

    But yeah... still... no "real" parent would choose their own life over the life of their 2 year old child, pregnant or not, so I reckon the only thing to so is assume (and respect) that and save the child.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Mockery)
    The pregnant mother, simply because otherwise a husband (assumption) somewhere would lose a wife and a child, making life an awful lot more difficult than still having his wife and losing a child.

    Also, they can always make more children

    It's abundantly clear that you don't understand what it's like to have children.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    It's abundantly clear that you don't understand what it's like to have children.
    I'd hope so, I haven't planned nor know of a little Mockery.. Would be an awkward twist of events otherwise :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    Well the change just makes it easier - all of my earlier reasoning applies, plus 2 is basically the cutest age. Everyone would have to save the 2 year old, they'd not be able to resist.

    Although, a 2 year old would probably spend months wondering where its mum had gone. They can't understand the concept of death so would just assume abandonment :bawling:.

    But yeah... still... no "real" parent would choose their own life over the life of their 2 year old child, pregnant or not, so I reckon the only thing to so is assume (and respect) that and save the child.
    I'd chose the pregnant woman. At least she'd be able to have her child and stay with her husband.

    If you chose the baby then the husband has lost his wife, his unborn child and will be left to bring up a child on his own, without a mother. I can't think of anything more upsetting than somebody growing up without a mum.

    To me, that's a very easy choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    It's possible but highly unlikely. It would be rare for ovulation to have returned at all 3 months post-partum and it's also unusual for a pregnancy to be discovered before 3 to 5 weeks - which would make her pregnant at 8/9 weeks post partum to be aware of the pregnancy at that point. So yes possible but... highly unlikely. If breastfeeding, fertility can take a year or longer to return. You'd think womenfolk would be taught about this stuff!

    Also, high levels of psychological stress have been shown to as much as double the risk of miscarriage - and I can't think of anything much more stressful than being pulled from a car only to see your baby trapped inside as it explodes...

    this is a really grim thread, OP. And I just saw your other "trapped in a car" scenario! What is it with you and killing 3 month old babies?
    It isn't rare at all for ovulation to return very quickly after giving birth. Far from it infact. Ever had a baby? Condoms are thrust upon you as you leave hospital! Yes, breastfeeding can delay it somewhat but it varies from woman to woman. It is also common (particularly those TTC) for women to know they are pregnant as early as 10 or 11 days past ovulation.
    Without wanting to offend, your facts sound like they've come from a textbook rather than any personal or professional experience.

    Although I agree with your summary of this thread...the OP seems a little bit odd.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Rybee)
    I'd chose the pregnant woman. At least she'd be able to have her child and stay with her husband.

    If you chose the baby then the husband has lost his wife, his unborn child and will be left to bring up a child on his own, without a mother. I can't think of anything more upsetting than somebody growing up without a mum.

    To me, that's a very easy choice.
    I wouldn't be able to live a normal life, nor be any use to anyone as a partner or father, if someone pulled me out of a car and left my daughter to burn. You're over-simplifying it, in my opinion.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.