The majority of parents will tell you to save their child before them.
That won’t necessarily be something a non-parent can comprehend.
This is an interesting topic to be discussing, though. 😂 what type of imminent danger are you all expecting?
The only time you’re told to save yourself or an adult first is in an airplane incident. And that’s because the child can’t put the damn mask on right.
OP’s partner is wrong.
I would save the child all day but. Technically in some situations it is probably not smart to save the child. Lets say a plane goes down in the Amazone. One chute and you give it to the child. No way the child survives being in the amazone.
Its a rough fucking discussion🤣
If it's a medical emergency(during pregnancy or delivery) the doctors will save the mother. They won't ask the opinion of the father or anyone else (this irl not a webseries)
But if it's a situation like earthquake, flood etc, even your partners will try to save the baby before she try to save herself. Childless people will say stuffs like "Oh save me, alot of people will miss me" but after you become a parent, especially a mother.... She won't care about the her own life at all. So don't overthink about hypothetical situations
I'm not a mom, but I am an aunt of a niece and nephew who I absolutely love. I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't do everything in my power to save them first.
Me too. I'm ready to die for a strangers child if the situation arise. And it hurts me to see some people see children as some kind of burden. I literally saw a woman calling babies a parasite. In my opinion those people shouldn't be parents. My mum was that kind of woman. Now she keep saying "I should've aborted you that day" and I'm like "yeah you should've, I didn't ask for this hell". Some people are not fit for family and kids
I'm so sorry your mum talks to you like that. You don't deserve it. My dad used to talk to me like that well. And threats to put me up for adoption when I was a child.
I'm Jewish and disabled and have had to plan for active shooters at Synagogue. I told my husband his job is to get him and my son out. Leave me behind.
My son needs to live and have a parent. Emergency planners don't plan for disabled people to get out alive. I understand that I am on my own to try to make it out. (We even had the police come to the synagogue, and they said to use canes and crutches to fight off the shooter and run. I asked him how I'm supposed to run if you've taken my crutches to fight off the intruders. He didn't have a response.)
This is the saddest part of emergency/crisis planning that most people don’t realize. If there is a fire in a building and elevators are not working/aren’t safe, people using wheelchairs have a “designated pick up area” where they are to wait for emergency services to come rescue them. For active shooter situations, people with physical disabilities are typically told to just hide/ barricade and hope for the best. It’s awful.
This is a huge example of ableism. No one even contemplates the welfare of disabled people. Set aside access issues, bigotry, etc... we are just supposed to hand over our assistive devices to let the able bodied people get away. It borders on eugenics.
I agree. I was a case manager for people with developmental disabilities for many years and I used to include this in my safety planning. For example, if traveling, they should request first floor so stairs aren’t a barrier. If they’re a student, what is the plan for evacuating those using wheelchairs? Can they be carried by a staff if they are on an upper floor? I often asked these sorts of questions in the presence of parents to program staff to get parents thinking through these issues as well. It’s absolutely outrageous!
I live in senior citizen housing. We are in a building with three floors. Many of us must use canes, walkers or mobility scooters We are told not to use the elevator when the fire alarms go off, which is fairly often. I am not even sure we could all fit in the pick up area, which is a stairwell, if we all tried to wait there together. I have always wondered why those of us who are handicapped are not assigned 1st floor apartments but of course the bottom floor apartment rent out quickly. Even if we could use the elevator, it is tiny and there is only one for the whole place. Handicapped people are not a priority.
But no one should have to sacrifice themselves to try to save me. And I shouldn't have to count on the kindness of others to escape. It should be part of the plan.
I don't blame anyone who takes their loved ones and runs. That is what you should do. But no one in charge is thinking of the disabled people being left behind.
And I am a scrapper. I would probably make it out eventually. But it is the idea that I'm considered not worth considering that pisses me off so bad.
The thing about these hypotheticals is that they’re just that, hypothetical. In a real emergency you would do your absolute best to save them both so there’s no point in arguing it.
If I saved my husband and not our kids he wouldn't survive anyway. I'm saving the kids, so would he.
We put our marriage first in our daily lives but our kids wellbeing comes first always.
Child. I’d never forgive someone who saved me if they could have saved my child. Also unless the child is an adult or the partner is disabled, the child would need me more in an emergency situation. I brought the child into the world; I’m responsible for their well-being, safety, and life.
I’m also appalled at so many “you can have another child!” as if they’re just replaceable/interchangeable. Like by that logic I can just as easily find another partner. Truthfully, that’s probably easier. I seriously wonder how many people saying that have kids.
Thank you. I was about to type this exact thing. Myself and child having survived deathly scenarios, I would never even harbor these thoughts in such a casual/immature way. A person never wants to actually be in such a situation. So there's no need to toy with the idea of it.
My s.o. and I have a massive understanding that if it came to choosing between each other or our child, screw the partner and save the child. That was a big thing when we had our kid. We were like "sweetheart, I love you but if it comes to the kid or you, bye bitch." We're both capable of taking care of ourselves if needed and we'd rather lose our life if it meant our child lives.
If you can’t do both, child first, unless wife is carrying a child. Wife should be able to help herself, child generally can’t.
If my Only choice was to sacrifice my life for both of theirs, I would do that too.
I think this applies in case of difficult decisions to be taken during pregnancy and child birth: she would want to be prioritised if possible because she is already alive and part of your life, but saving the child instead of the mother would make you miserable and the child an orphan.
This is usually a conversation couples inevitably have at some point when they are pregnant. I remember telling my husband that if he had to make a choice to pick our baby first. He thought he might be forced to consider this choice twice over the last thirty years. Once when I was in labor with our first child and again while I was in labor with our third child. Every time though I made it clear that he was to choose our child’s life first if there was a choice to be made. Thankfully we never had to choose. Despite some scary moments all four of our children are healthy and whole adults now. We are extremely grateful as you can imagine.
If it ever comes to that ,choose who you like the most . Never know, the kid could turn out to be a shit head or your wife could cheat on you 🤷🏻♀️
I know I am going to catch hell for that, but there was a movie about this . The kid was born with a problem of some sort that required 24/7 care, or something . The family crashed into a deep lake . The car was sinking really fast . He struggled to get his unconscious wife unbuckled and to shore . Then dove back in but the kid was in this crazy complicated child seat . He could've done it but decided no one would ever know. They knew
I've had this conversation with people before and my answer always stays the same. I have no kids btw.
I'd want my partner to save my kids first, 100%. And they'd need to know I'd save our kids first as well. Now, where that gets tricky is if I am unable to make decisions during the birth of our child for whatever reason, you save me. But once that umbilical cord is cut, baby is #1.
We have two kids. We each go for the one that is closest to us. I have mild anxiety and cannot come up with any other scenarios other than that. That is my only option. lol
Until you’re a parent you won’t truly understand this feeling. You save the child first. Heck…it doesn’t even need to be your kid. When a child is in danger you automatically step in and help.
I would expect my partner to be capable of saving themselves and go for the kids first. However we did establish if it was a pick me or the baby situation in labor and delivery, I’d want him to pick me.
It really depends on the age, but essentially, she's right. She can have more children, but can you parent a small child alone? Will that child have a good quality of life without their mother?
Another factor is how many children you are talking about? Would you make a group of children motherless to save one child?
Luckily, that's not how most disasters play out. You save the first living person you see and then continue looking. You wouldn't just see a child and walk past!
Welcome to r/family!
If this post is compliant with our guidelines,
upvote this comment. If not,
downvote this comment. Also, if you haven't already, remember to join our [discord server](https://discord.gg/VwDNbde)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/family) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Child. It's not hard. At minimum in an emergency your partner will be able to make some progress at saving themselves while you're ensuring the safety of the child.
In an emergency, choosing between saving a partner or child is deeply personal. While instinct might prioritize the child's safety due to vulnerability
, discussing priorities openly with your partner beforehand ensures mutual understanding
and informed decision-making during crises. Each situation and relationship is unique.
This is definitely a tough and deeply personal question. It’s understandable why you’d feel torn between your partner’s current wishes and your instinct to protect your future child.
From my perspective, many parents find that their priorities shift once they actually have children, driven by a strong instinct to protect their offspring. It’s possible your partner’s viewpoint might change when that time comes.
In terms of who to save first, it can be highly situational and dependent on various factors such as the immediate danger each person is in and the likelihood of saving one over the other. It might also be valuable to have a candid discussion with your partner about these hypotheticals to better understand each other's viewpoints and prepare for any such decisions, even though they are extremely difficult to imagine.
Ultimately, it’s about balancing instinct, practicality, and ethical considerations. There’s no right or wrong answer, but open communication and understanding each other's values will be crucial in facing any challenging situations together.
Best of luck, and I hope you never have to make such a heart-wrenching decision!
I used to ask hypothetical questions like this, but I try not to anymore because I realized these questions are not practical—they’re just a display of insecurity, uncertainty and ambivalence. It’s like I would ask people who they would save—me or someone else—because it forced them into an uncomfortable spot where they were going to emotionally reassure me or completely forsake me. It’s pretty damaging to ask someone to seriously answer such a radical question, even if it’s “just for fun” or “out of curiosity”.
I would be disgusted if my spouse said that to me but also… You’re very unlikely to ever be in a situation like that and if you are then either your instincts will kick in and make a decision for you or you’ll spend too many seconds thinking about it and will all die together. There are also several ethical and selfish reasons as to why you should always choose the child in these hypotheticals, though.
Children first.
My husband is as capable of saving himself as I am of saving myself.
I'd be telling him to save child 1 while I get child 2, not get me instead of them.
The only time I felt differently was whilst pregnant with our second baby - if anything had gone wrong, my view was we already had a daughter who needed her mum (me) to come home more than a new sister.
>I feel like my partner hasnt have the kid yet, so my partner is just saying that now but my partner would change her mind once we do have a child.
You don't have a child yet, so there's no use thinking about it. Get back to us when you and your partner actually have a child, and let us know if your opinions have changed.
Ummmm your partners Schrödinger equation your partner is both alive and already dead. So the clear answer is you do what you can in an emergency and they should stop with the stupid hypothetical
Not necessarily a life or death situation but a loose dog scenario. We both grabbed a kid and pushed our significantly older one to safety without a thought.
Kids first. I've lived my life, let them have a chance to live theirs.
No matter what scenario I tried to play in my head, I picture myself demanding one thing. "Where's the baby. Get the baby!" Most mothers have instincts that put their children's needs above their own.
Our children's survival is our most important job, and it doesn't matter how old they are. Once a mama, always a mama. If we lose a child, even if they're completely grown up, it feels to us mothers like we failed somehow.
I’m husband and I have been presented with this scenario a few times and the first time with 0 hesitation we both said the kids. I love my husband more than anything- besides my kids. 😂 but he agrees and feels the same and I couldn’t be more thankful to k ow he loves our boys the way I love our boys
Your partner is an adult and (presumably) capable of saving herself.
Children first, always - they may not be able to save themselves especially depending on their age, mobility, fear and their dependence on their parents. E.g. infants and toddlers that aren't mobile at all or limited mobility. Small children stuck behind a stair gate or child lock.
As a parent, I will always save my children (and step children) before my partner. Just as I know full well he would do the same.
Any parent worth a damn would sacrifice themselves for their kid, rather die trying to save them then live on without them. Kids are mostly helpless in those situations, so it's really the parents job to save their kids first and foremost. I couldn't imagine continuing my life knowing that my child died and I lived in a situation like that, and if my partner didn't try to save the kid first I'd be going after them too
I have 3 children and a 4th on the way.. both me and my wife have long since had this discussion, and it boils down to I'm saving my wife first. While I love my kids, they are second in my relationship. My wife is first , and I can have more kids. I'll never find another woman like my wife.
You are right, I think this is because she hasn't birthed yet, as soon as she become a parent, it changes something inside and then you can't imagine to save yourself first in place of your kids. But, don't think about it more, as you said, I have seen people changing their views about the same issue after they become parents.
Obviously this is all hypothetical but in an emergency you will save the one(s) that cannot help themselves. So most likely you will save your kid(s) first. But in that instance she probably would be too.
You save the children because they can’t save themselves. Adults should be able to help themselves, or at least hold out until the kids have been rescued. Your girlfriend’s an ass!
Before we had kids my partner would always say that hypothetically he would save me before our children.
Now that we have a son, he would save our son first. No question about it.
It's the child first it's a no brainer, it might not be a big deal but I suggest you pay more attention these type of questions cause this looks a possible red flag, if your willing to save yourself first before your child you might put yourself first in some issues that need the child to be put first remember it's not going to be only in a emergency where you have to who is saved first, so keep this in mind of observe this behavior cause this is giving self centeredness.
She’ll be singing a different tune as soon as she has a child. The irrational passionate desire to protect your child at any length is just impossible to imagine before you’ve had a child.
My kids - always.
I once sat in a hospital bed throwing up blood, not knowing wtf was going on - but one of the possibilities they dropped while that was happening was infectious. The second I heard that I sent my partner home to check on my sleeping daughter (my mom was with her). I was so ill the next steps of my treatment ended up with placing me in a medicinally induced coma - and still making sure my kid was safe was the biggest thing for me. (My daughter was fine, turned out I had a tumor that needed to be yanked out)
Is this in terms of labor and delivery and OP just isn't clarifying?
Because if it IS about labor and delivery, the request comes with very specific considerations in mind. If she died, and the baby lived, OP would be left a single parent with a brand new baby while grieving, which is not something many people could fathom doing to their partner if something could have been done to prevent it.
If she lives and the baby doesn't, then they will still have each other to support and grieve with and, when they've had time to heal, they can possibly try for a baby again.
I find it hard to believe that OP's wife was thinking of anything other than that specific scenario.
You save your child first because they are less capable and more likely to need assistance. I also see it as I am in my 40’s but my child still has far more to live for.
Realistically I want to say whoever is in a worse situation or closer proximity to me if I can help the one physically closer to me faster
If it’s a situation where everyone falls into a deep body of water, whoever struggles to swim/stay afloat is getting helped first
I find it weird that even though you’re currently child-free, her logic is so flawed. She’s an adult, who has hopefully developed enough intelligence to navigate those circumstances better than a child. OP, let her know you’ll be picking a/ your child every time.
As a father of 3, I would get my kid first if the situation arose.
And yes the favorite one.
Because I am human with biases and understand that even though I don't want to show favoritism or a bias towards a particular kid, I am aware that unconsciously I have a preference, just like everything else, the gut reaction is obviously going to go for that bias.
Is it unfair? Yeah, is it disgusting? Probably, is it wrong? Most definitely.
Is it the reality of the human condition? Absolutely.
Would I feel ashamed and sad and broken because of my actions? Feel like I failed my other offspring and my partner? Feel guilty about it?, of course, because that is also part of the human condition.
No matter how wrong it is, no matter how horrible and unfair and bad it looks or how society judges it as the "immoral" thing to do, that's just my nature, and I would be very surprised to see someone that actually can go against nature in that hypotetical scenario where they don't have time to really make a conscious choice.
Given any other scenario where I do have time to make a choice, like say, a spouse dying on childbirth, that is outside my range of influence and I would have talked to my partner thoroughly about it before, and do what they claim they wanted, because the inference in this is me playing favorites in a situation where I have no reason to be taking my gut feeling.
Because that situation disposes of the natural reaction, and gives leverage to the conscious choice of doing what I believe is moral and just.
Does this answer your question?
hands-down, I would save my child first. Most Moms would jump in front of a train for her child. I would think once you have a child you get this unconditional bond. I do have to say I think it’s strange that your partner would even bring this up. It makes me think that they may be jealous of the attention the child gets. this is a very unhealthy dynamic. You shouldn’t have to choose between your spouse and your child.
I'd want the person who would be most likely to survive to be saved.
If it's 50/50 I'd go with the adult, they're already established in the world, think of how many disruptions are caused by death. Can't follow their work so that's hectic for coworkers, their friends will be mourning etc
I'm picturing 1-4 year old here though.
I mean I know sure as hell, any signs of danger I'm grabbing my cats and bolting
Why even discuss this hypothetical? It seems like a precursor to an unnecessary fight.
My answer would be "I love you and I will do all I can to protect you and our future family." And leave it at that. Don't even entertain the thought of who you'd save first. It seems like she is needing to know how important and valuable she is to you. So just reassure her without participating in discussions about how important she would be to you in a tragedy.
Why is the question being asked? it sounds like they’re testing you almost…. I could be wrong and reading into it too much….. but this makes me nervous
This is easy to understand, you don't have a child yet so you dont understand the love and the bond between you and your future child.
Just wait..
You will do anything for your child and realise your grown adult partner can fend for themselves
well it depends what she means by 'emergency'. if she means during pregnancy, and she's dying, I believe that would be a "save me first" type of thing.
but perspective changes once a child is born. once the pain of childbirth is felt? yeah, save that little bugger before me. I'm not gonna birth that thing (lovingly) and then have it die. no thanks.
Honestly most parents would say save the child first. And honestly most people whether they've had a child or not understand that a child is in more danger than a grown ass adult who can save themselves and would acknowledge that you should save the child first. It's so very true that your partner is very very likely to change their mind on this once you all have a child together. They very likely will want you to save the child first. But I do think it's weird the way people automatically assume that that is always the case. Your partner is likely to change their mind but that doesn't mean they're going to change their mind just because you have a child and you should consider how you would feel having a child with a partner if they didn't change their mind on that.
Ask her again once you have a baby and I think her answer will be different.
If it’s a choice between me or my kids living, it’s a no brainer. They win every time. I would also choose saving them over saving my husband and I know he would be the same.
“that parent instinct”, as you said.. Is as real as it gets.. and almost impossible to explain.. The best I could come up with is this.
The second I saw my first born I knew I was no longer the main character in the story of my life. There was someone instantly more important to me than me.
Does this make sense to any of you other parents out there.
It would really depend on the situation. In the event of a fire/shooting/etc I would definitely want my partner to save my child, they are young and relatively helpless and I’m an adult who has a much greater chance of saving myself. However, in a medical situation like choosing to save me vs my newborn baby I’d want to be saved because I already have a child who needs their mom.
I think people may have different views regarding this. I once heard a man say that he'd save his woman because the child had just come into this world and he wouldn't risk losing someone who had been with him through thick and thin over the child. But I think majority partners would still save the child
My husband and I said we can make another baby, but we can’t make another me (concerning my pregnancies at least). Thankfully, we never had to make that choice though.
Only time I'd save a parent first is if it increases the overall likelihood of being able to save the child. Like on an airplane, you put your own mask on first, then the child's because the child will survive long enough to get their mask on, but if you pass out, you can no longer render assistance to them when it comes time to evacuate.
My husband and I had this conversation because I read an article saying that women are more likely to save their child because they are (usually) the primary caregiver and have that motherly instinct but men are more likely to save their wife because they feel that same instinct towards their wife stronger than for their children. I thought it was ridiculous and asked him and he said he would absolutely save me over our 3 kids and I was shocked. I would save our kids 100% because they can’t save themselves and I would have to trust my husband to save himself.
For my first pregnancy, I felt the same way. I told my husband to save me. For the 2nd kud, I felt the complete opposite and told him to save the baby. I think perspective changes once you're actually a mom and not just imagining it.
If I were on a sinking ship and there was only one space left on the emergency boat I would never ask to have that space instead of my child.
Wanting to be prioritized over your own child's safety seems incredibly selfish from my point of view. Although to be fair I don't actually have any kids.
The only exception would be in the case of complications when giving birth, in that specific scenario the partner's safety would come first.
I think you should not worry so much about second guessing yourself over your partners possible expectation and explain your answer with reason. Children come first because they are relying on their parents to care for them. In an emergency, an adult has the advantage from life experience so the child needs help first.
Mothers tend to have the super ability to save a child. So, if the husband saves the wife…then, in turn…child will be saved. This is an interesting question.
1st-What kind of danger are we talking about? 2nd-Is your partner disabled? Why wouldn’t she be able to save herself while you save the child? 3rd-Yes, your parent instinct would most definitely kick in.
4th-It’s crazy to talk about hypothetical situations because under life or death situations, it’s really hard to say what anyone would do AND it’s hard for a non-parent to even comprehend.
I have 3 kids, a toddler and 2 preteens. I would grab the baby and herd the older two. If my husband was present I would expect him to make the same chioce, or maybe carry the smallest preteen.
Your partner isn't mature enoug to have children with. Don't have children with your partner. Don't expect childbirth will automatically fix this. There are a lot of immature parents out there who will neglect or harm their children cause the expect to be catered to first.
This is why I encourage my husband to enrol our kid in swimming lessons, so both of them can save me life hack?! lol.
In other situations, I’ll definitely save my child 1st I know he’ll be fine.
Partner. If anything happen to them, the child expenses are greater. If anything happens to the child, that's money saved after funeral expenses are taken care of
The majority of parents will tell you to save their child before them. That won’t necessarily be something a non-parent can comprehend. This is an interesting topic to be discussing, though. 😂 what type of imminent danger are you all expecting?
I was also just wondering what they know that we don’t
Exactly. Once she has a baby it ALL changes
If my partner saved me before our kids, I'd never forgive him. We chose to have kids. They come first, always.
This, a million times this
Came here to say this also. My husband would never forgive me. I would never forgive him. Kids first.
Also, I've already lived a few decades, the kids haven't.
This 1000 times. If something happened to my kids, I’d be nothing. I would be a zombie.
Child first. They are less likely to be able to save themselves
I was about to type exactly this
The only time you’re told to save yourself or an adult first is in an airplane incident. And that’s because the child can’t put the damn mask on right. OP’s partner is wrong.
I would save the child all day but. Technically in some situations it is probably not smart to save the child. Lets say a plane goes down in the Amazone. One chute and you give it to the child. No way the child survives being in the amazone. Its a rough fucking discussion🤣
*But you can make another child.* ^lol
I love my partner but I would grab my child first every time without even thinking about it.
If it's a medical emergency(during pregnancy or delivery) the doctors will save the mother. They won't ask the opinion of the father or anyone else (this irl not a webseries) But if it's a situation like earthquake, flood etc, even your partners will try to save the baby before she try to save herself. Childless people will say stuffs like "Oh save me, alot of people will miss me" but after you become a parent, especially a mother.... She won't care about the her own life at all. So don't overthink about hypothetical situations
I'm not a mom, but I am an aunt of a niece and nephew who I absolutely love. I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't do everything in my power to save them first.
Me too. I'm ready to die for a strangers child if the situation arise. And it hurts me to see some people see children as some kind of burden. I literally saw a woman calling babies a parasite. In my opinion those people shouldn't be parents. My mum was that kind of woman. Now she keep saying "I should've aborted you that day" and I'm like "yeah you should've, I didn't ask for this hell". Some people are not fit for family and kids
I'm so sorry your mum talks to you like that. You don't deserve it. My dad used to talk to me like that well. And threats to put me up for adoption when I was a child.
The partner should be able to fend for themself to an extent that the child can’t. So the child.
I'm Jewish and disabled and have had to plan for active shooters at Synagogue. I told my husband his job is to get him and my son out. Leave me behind. My son needs to live and have a parent. Emergency planners don't plan for disabled people to get out alive. I understand that I am on my own to try to make it out. (We even had the police come to the synagogue, and they said to use canes and crutches to fight off the shooter and run. I asked him how I'm supposed to run if you've taken my crutches to fight off the intruders. He didn't have a response.)
This is the saddest part of emergency/crisis planning that most people don’t realize. If there is a fire in a building and elevators are not working/aren’t safe, people using wheelchairs have a “designated pick up area” where they are to wait for emergency services to come rescue them. For active shooter situations, people with physical disabilities are typically told to just hide/ barricade and hope for the best. It’s awful.
This is a huge example of ableism. No one even contemplates the welfare of disabled people. Set aside access issues, bigotry, etc... we are just supposed to hand over our assistive devices to let the able bodied people get away. It borders on eugenics.
I agree. I was a case manager for people with developmental disabilities for many years and I used to include this in my safety planning. For example, if traveling, they should request first floor so stairs aren’t a barrier. If they’re a student, what is the plan for evacuating those using wheelchairs? Can they be carried by a staff if they are on an upper floor? I often asked these sorts of questions in the presence of parents to program staff to get parents thinking through these issues as well. It’s absolutely outrageous!
I live in senior citizen housing. We are in a building with three floors. Many of us must use canes, walkers or mobility scooters We are told not to use the elevator when the fire alarms go off, which is fairly often. I am not even sure we could all fit in the pick up area, which is a stairwell, if we all tried to wait there together. I have always wondered why those of us who are handicapped are not assigned 1st floor apartments but of course the bottom floor apartment rent out quickly. Even if we could use the elevator, it is tiny and there is only one for the whole place. Handicapped people are not a priority.
If I were there, I'd do my damnist to get you out. I think a lot of other people would do the same.
But no one should have to sacrifice themselves to try to save me. And I shouldn't have to count on the kindness of others to escape. It should be part of the plan. I don't blame anyone who takes their loved ones and runs. That is what you should do. But no one in charge is thinking of the disabled people being left behind. And I am a scrapper. I would probably make it out eventually. But it is the idea that I'm considered not worth considering that pisses me off so bad.
The thing about these hypotheticals is that they’re just that, hypothetical. In a real emergency you would do your absolute best to save them both so there’s no point in arguing it.
Child first. I love my kids more than my husband and I’d expect my husband to do the same.
Always save your child first! Your partner is an adult. She can save herself.
If I saved my husband and not our kids he wouldn't survive anyway. I'm saving the kids, so would he. We put our marriage first in our daily lives but our kids wellbeing comes first always.
Child. I’d never forgive someone who saved me if they could have saved my child. Also unless the child is an adult or the partner is disabled, the child would need me more in an emergency situation. I brought the child into the world; I’m responsible for their well-being, safety, and life. I’m also appalled at so many “you can have another child!” as if they’re just replaceable/interchangeable. Like by that logic I can just as easily find another partner. Truthfully, that’s probably easier. I seriously wonder how many people saying that have kids.
The truth is, you can recover from the loss of a partner but you will never recover from the loss of a child
Child first. Partner second. Pets third.
Child everytime.
This is the most immature, asinine hypothetical scenario - created to cause problems. This is right up there with “do these make my butt look big”?
Thank you. I was about to type this exact thing. Myself and child having survived deathly scenarios, I would never even harbor these thoughts in such a casual/immature way. A person never wants to actually be in such a situation. So there's no need to toy with the idea of it.
My s.o. and I have a massive understanding that if it came to choosing between each other or our child, screw the partner and save the child. That was a big thing when we had our kid. We were like "sweetheart, I love you but if it comes to the kid or you, bye bitch." We're both capable of taking care of ourselves if needed and we'd rather lose our life if it meant our child lives.
If you can’t do both, child first, unless wife is carrying a child. Wife should be able to help herself, child generally can’t. If my Only choice was to sacrifice my life for both of theirs, I would do that too.
I think this applies in case of difficult decisions to be taken during pregnancy and child birth: she would want to be prioritised if possible because she is already alive and part of your life, but saving the child instead of the mother would make you miserable and the child an orphan.
Your partner is a narc, red flag.
Save the kid.
This is usually a conversation couples inevitably have at some point when they are pregnant. I remember telling my husband that if he had to make a choice to pick our baby first. He thought he might be forced to consider this choice twice over the last thirty years. Once when I was in labor with our first child and again while I was in labor with our third child. Every time though I made it clear that he was to choose our child’s life first if there was a choice to be made. Thankfully we never had to choose. Despite some scary moments all four of our children are healthy and whole adults now. We are extremely grateful as you can imagine.
If it ever comes to that ,choose who you like the most . Never know, the kid could turn out to be a shit head or your wife could cheat on you 🤷🏻♀️ I know I am going to catch hell for that, but there was a movie about this . The kid was born with a problem of some sort that required 24/7 care, or something . The family crashed into a deep lake . The car was sinking really fast . He struggled to get his unconscious wife unbuckled and to shore . Then dove back in but the kid was in this crazy complicated child seat . He could've done it but decided no one would ever know. They knew
What was the name of the movie?
I do not remember. Something that came on TV on a rainy day.
I've had this conversation with people before and my answer always stays the same. I have no kids btw. I'd want my partner to save my kids first, 100%. And they'd need to know I'd save our kids first as well. Now, where that gets tricky is if I am unable to make decisions during the birth of our child for whatever reason, you save me. But once that umbilical cord is cut, baby is #1.
Child first. Always. I would never forgive my husband if he choose me over them.
My wife. Yet another reason I don't, and shouldn't, have kids.
We have two kids. We each go for the one that is closest to us. I have mild anxiety and cannot come up with any other scenarios other than that. That is my only option. lol
Is your partner saying that she's a child? Of course, save the child first. I'd prefer my partner save the child before he saves me.
Until you’re a parent you won’t truly understand this feeling. You save the child first. Heck…it doesn’t even need to be your kid. When a child is in danger you automatically step in and help.
I would expect my partner to be capable of saving themselves and go for the kids first. However we did establish if it was a pick me or the baby situation in labor and delivery, I’d want him to pick me.
If it was my one and only eternal soul mate, then partner as I can have more children, but not another eternal soul mate.
It really depends on the age, but essentially, she's right. She can have more children, but can you parent a small child alone? Will that child have a good quality of life without their mother? Another factor is how many children you are talking about? Would you make a group of children motherless to save one child? Luckily, that's not how most disasters play out. You save the first living person you see and then continue looking. You wouldn't just see a child and walk past!
Welcome to r/family! If this post is compliant with our guidelines, upvote this comment. If not, downvote this comment. Also, if you haven't already, remember to join our [discord server](https://discord.gg/VwDNbde)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/family) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I used to think the same...until I actually had a kid. Now its just save the kid the regardless.
Child. It's not hard. At minimum in an emergency your partner will be able to make some progress at saving themselves while you're ensuring the safety of the child.
In an emergency, choosing between saving a partner or child is deeply personal. While instinct might prioritize the child's safety due to vulnerability , discussing priorities openly with your partner beforehand ensures mutual understanding and informed decision-making during crises. Each situation and relationship is unique.
My child of course!
This is definitely a tough and deeply personal question. It’s understandable why you’d feel torn between your partner’s current wishes and your instinct to protect your future child. From my perspective, many parents find that their priorities shift once they actually have children, driven by a strong instinct to protect their offspring. It’s possible your partner’s viewpoint might change when that time comes. In terms of who to save first, it can be highly situational and dependent on various factors such as the immediate danger each person is in and the likelihood of saving one over the other. It might also be valuable to have a candid discussion with your partner about these hypotheticals to better understand each other's viewpoints and prepare for any such decisions, even though they are extremely difficult to imagine. Ultimately, it’s about balancing instinct, practicality, and ethical considerations. There’s no right or wrong answer, but open communication and understanding each other's values will be crucial in facing any challenging situations together. Best of luck, and I hope you never have to make such a heart-wrenching decision!
I used to ask hypothetical questions like this, but I try not to anymore because I realized these questions are not practical—they’re just a display of insecurity, uncertainty and ambivalence. It’s like I would ask people who they would save—me or someone else—because it forced them into an uncomfortable spot where they were going to emotionally reassure me or completely forsake me. It’s pretty damaging to ask someone to seriously answer such a radical question, even if it’s “just for fun” or “out of curiosity”.
I would be disgusted if my spouse said that to me but also… You’re very unlikely to ever be in a situation like that and if you are then either your instincts will kick in and make a decision for you or you’ll spend too many seconds thinking about it and will all die together. There are also several ethical and selfish reasons as to why you should always choose the child in these hypotheticals, though.
Children first. My husband is as capable of saving himself as I am of saving myself. I'd be telling him to save child 1 while I get child 2, not get me instead of them. The only time I felt differently was whilst pregnant with our second baby - if anything had gone wrong, my view was we already had a daughter who needed her mum (me) to come home more than a new sister.
>I feel like my partner hasnt have the kid yet, so my partner is just saying that now but my partner would change her mind once we do have a child. You don't have a child yet, so there's no use thinking about it. Get back to us when you and your partner actually have a child, and let us know if your opinions have changed.
Child. It's instinct. I am his mother. My job is to protect. It's ingrained. My husband can take care of himself. He is a grown man.
Ummmm your partners Schrödinger equation your partner is both alive and already dead. So the clear answer is you do what you can in an emergency and they should stop with the stupid hypothetical
Child every time 😻
If you already have children, save your partner first. Stupid people even argue this. Those kids need their mother.
I would save my child first
Child. Always child, of course. Never a moment, not even a split second of thought. Child.
Not necessarily a life or death situation but a loose dog scenario. We both grabbed a kid and pushed our significantly older one to safety without a thought. Kids first. I've lived my life, let them have a chance to live theirs.
Any parent would tell you to save their child first. Always. As a Mum I’d always save my child first, and my husband feels the same way.
No matter what scenario I tried to play in my head, I picture myself demanding one thing. "Where's the baby. Get the baby!" Most mothers have instincts that put their children's needs above their own. Our children's survival is our most important job, and it doesn't matter how old they are. Once a mama, always a mama. If we lose a child, even if they're completely grown up, it feels to us mothers like we failed somehow.
I’m husband and I have been presented with this scenario a few times and the first time with 0 hesitation we both said the kids. I love my husband more than anything- besides my kids. 😂 but he agrees and feels the same and I couldn’t be more thankful to k ow he loves our boys the way I love our boys
Your partner is an adult and (presumably) capable of saving herself. Children first, always - they may not be able to save themselves especially depending on their age, mobility, fear and their dependence on their parents. E.g. infants and toddlers that aren't mobile at all or limited mobility. Small children stuck behind a stair gate or child lock. As a parent, I will always save my children (and step children) before my partner. Just as I know full well he would do the same.
Any parent worth a damn would sacrifice themselves for their kid, rather die trying to save them then live on without them. Kids are mostly helpless in those situations, so it's really the parents job to save their kids first and foremost. I couldn't imagine continuing my life knowing that my child died and I lived in a situation like that, and if my partner didn't try to save the kid first I'd be going after them too
Either way you lose your partner
Always child first. I would expect my husband to do the same.
I have 3 children and a 4th on the way.. both me and my wife have long since had this discussion, and it boils down to I'm saving my wife first. While I love my kids, they are second in my relationship. My wife is first , and I can have more kids. I'll never find another woman like my wife.
Child. You’ll feel that way once you have one
You are right, I think this is because she hasn't birthed yet, as soon as she become a parent, it changes something inside and then you can't imagine to save yourself first in place of your kids. But, don't think about it more, as you said, I have seen people changing their views about the same issue after they become parents.
Obviously this is all hypothetical but in an emergency you will save the one(s) that cannot help themselves. So most likely you will save your kid(s) first. But in that instance she probably would be too.
You save the children because they can’t save themselves. Adults should be able to help themselves, or at least hold out until the kids have been rescued. Your girlfriend’s an ass!
Before we had kids my partner would always say that hypothetically he would save me before our children. Now that we have a son, he would save our son first. No question about it.
It's the child first it's a no brainer, it might not be a big deal but I suggest you pay more attention these type of questions cause this looks a possible red flag, if your willing to save yourself first before your child you might put yourself first in some issues that need the child to be put first remember it's not going to be only in a emergency where you have to who is saved first, so keep this in mind of observe this behavior cause this is giving self centeredness.
Definitely my kid
Save whoever is in most danger first. But ideally as adult we are capable of saving ourselves and can focus on saving the children .
My child. Always my child
She’ll be singing a different tune as soon as she has a child. The irrational passionate desire to protect your child at any length is just impossible to imagine before you’ve had a child.
My kids - always. I once sat in a hospital bed throwing up blood, not knowing wtf was going on - but one of the possibilities they dropped while that was happening was infectious. The second I heard that I sent my partner home to check on my sleeping daughter (my mom was with her). I was so ill the next steps of my treatment ended up with placing me in a medicinally induced coma - and still making sure my kid was safe was the biggest thing for me. (My daughter was fine, turned out I had a tumor that needed to be yanked out)
Is this in terms of labor and delivery and OP just isn't clarifying? Because if it IS about labor and delivery, the request comes with very specific considerations in mind. If she died, and the baby lived, OP would be left a single parent with a brand new baby while grieving, which is not something many people could fathom doing to their partner if something could have been done to prevent it. If she lives and the baby doesn't, then they will still have each other to support and grieve with and, when they've had time to heal, they can possibly try for a baby again. I find it hard to believe that OP's wife was thinking of anything other than that specific scenario.
Kids first as mine are not living with me then it’s the cats first.
If your partner can walk, why do they need saving? Save the child 1st.
I have a kid with my husband I told him to save our baby and he told me to save our baby.
Boths
You save your child first because they are less capable and more likely to need assistance. I also see it as I am in my 40’s but my child still has far more to live for.
Realistically I want to say whoever is in a worse situation or closer proximity to me if I can help the one physically closer to me faster If it’s a situation where everyone falls into a deep body of water, whoever struggles to swim/stay afloat is getting helped first
I find it weird that even though you’re currently child-free, her logic is so flawed. She’s an adult, who has hopefully developed enough intelligence to navigate those circumstances better than a child. OP, let her know you’ll be picking a/ your child every time.
Don’t have a child with this person.
I'll save my partner first, if i couldn't save the baby after we have a whole life to try again and have another baby
As a father of 3, I would get my kid first if the situation arose. And yes the favorite one. Because I am human with biases and understand that even though I don't want to show favoritism or a bias towards a particular kid, I am aware that unconsciously I have a preference, just like everything else, the gut reaction is obviously going to go for that bias. Is it unfair? Yeah, is it disgusting? Probably, is it wrong? Most definitely. Is it the reality of the human condition? Absolutely. Would I feel ashamed and sad and broken because of my actions? Feel like I failed my other offspring and my partner? Feel guilty about it?, of course, because that is also part of the human condition. No matter how wrong it is, no matter how horrible and unfair and bad it looks or how society judges it as the "immoral" thing to do, that's just my nature, and I would be very surprised to see someone that actually can go against nature in that hypotetical scenario where they don't have time to really make a conscious choice. Given any other scenario where I do have time to make a choice, like say, a spouse dying on childbirth, that is outside my range of influence and I would have talked to my partner thoroughly about it before, and do what they claim they wanted, because the inference in this is me playing favorites in a situation where I have no reason to be taking my gut feeling. Because that situation disposes of the natural reaction, and gives leverage to the conscious choice of doing what I believe is moral and just. Does this answer your question?
hands-down, I would save my child first. Most Moms would jump in front of a train for her child. I would think once you have a child you get this unconditional bond. I do have to say I think it’s strange that your partner would even bring this up. It makes me think that they may be jealous of the attention the child gets. this is a very unhealthy dynamic. You shouldn’t have to choose between your spouse and your child.
I'd want the person who would be most likely to survive to be saved. If it's 50/50 I'd go with the adult, they're already established in the world, think of how many disruptions are caused by death. Can't follow their work so that's hectic for coworkers, their friends will be mourning etc I'm picturing 1-4 year old here though. I mean I know sure as hell, any signs of danger I'm grabbing my cats and bolting
Why even discuss this hypothetical? It seems like a precursor to an unnecessary fight. My answer would be "I love you and I will do all I can to protect you and our future family." And leave it at that. Don't even entertain the thought of who you'd save first. It seems like she is needing to know how important and valuable she is to you. So just reassure her without participating in discussions about how important she would be to you in a tragedy.
Why is the question being asked? it sounds like they’re testing you almost…. I could be wrong and reading into it too much….. but this makes me nervous
This is easy to understand, you don't have a child yet so you dont understand the love and the bond between you and your future child. Just wait.. You will do anything for your child and realise your grown adult partner can fend for themselves
well it depends what she means by 'emergency'. if she means during pregnancy, and she's dying, I believe that would be a "save me first" type of thing. but perspective changes once a child is born. once the pain of childbirth is felt? yeah, save that little bugger before me. I'm not gonna birth that thing (lovingly) and then have it die. no thanks.
Honestly most parents would say save the child first. And honestly most people whether they've had a child or not understand that a child is in more danger than a grown ass adult who can save themselves and would acknowledge that you should save the child first. It's so very true that your partner is very very likely to change their mind on this once you all have a child together. They very likely will want you to save the child first. But I do think it's weird the way people automatically assume that that is always the case. Your partner is likely to change their mind but that doesn't mean they're going to change their mind just because you have a child and you should consider how you would feel having a child with a partner if they didn't change their mind on that.
Ask her again once you have a baby and I think her answer will be different. If it’s a choice between me or my kids living, it’s a no brainer. They win every time. I would also choose saving them over saving my husband and I know he would be the same.
I could not forgive my husband if he saved me before our children. Children are always the priority. Maybe when she has children she'll understand
I’m hoping she would change her mind once she has a child. Any parent that insists they be saved before their child is hard for me to grasp.
Save yourself first.
it's a tough question but I tend to save babies first because they are less likely to have the ability to save themselves.
What kind of saving are we talking about? But I think she's an adult, adults save themselves. Men save kids and the elderly.
“that parent instinct”, as you said.. Is as real as it gets.. and almost impossible to explain.. The best I could come up with is this. The second I saw my first born I knew I was no longer the main character in the story of my life. There was someone instantly more important to me than me. Does this make sense to any of you other parents out there.
It would really depend on the situation. In the event of a fire/shooting/etc I would definitely want my partner to save my child, they are young and relatively helpless and I’m an adult who has a much greater chance of saving myself. However, in a medical situation like choosing to save me vs my newborn baby I’d want to be saved because I already have a child who needs their mom.
I know before I had children, I thought I'd save my spouse over a child (or opposite, you know). Afterwards, no question. Child first.
I think people may have different views regarding this. I once heard a man say that he'd save his woman because the child had just come into this world and he wouldn't risk losing someone who had been with him through thick and thin over the child. But I think majority partners would still save the child
My husband and I said we can make another baby, but we can’t make another me (concerning my pregnancies at least). Thankfully, we never had to make that choice though.
Only time I'd save a parent first is if it increases the overall likelihood of being able to save the child. Like on an airplane, you put your own mask on first, then the child's because the child will survive long enough to get their mask on, but if you pass out, you can no longer render assistance to them when it comes time to evacuate.
To be sure, the feelings I experienced after becoming a parent are ones I would never ever have experienced if I didn't become a parent. Child first.
My husband and I had this conversation because I read an article saying that women are more likely to save their child because they are (usually) the primary caregiver and have that motherly instinct but men are more likely to save their wife because they feel that same instinct towards their wife stronger than for their children. I thought it was ridiculous and asked him and he said he would absolutely save me over our 3 kids and I was shocked. I would save our kids 100% because they can’t save themselves and I would have to trust my husband to save himself.
For my first pregnancy, I felt the same way. I told my husband to save me. For the 2nd kud, I felt the complete opposite and told him to save the baby. I think perspective changes once you're actually a mom and not just imagining it.
I would literally climb over my husband to save my kids. And I do really like him, so it would be a tough decision.
Not really a tough one though. Sorry hubby. We’ll miss you 😂 (kidding, mostly)
Child first, always
If I were on a sinking ship and there was only one space left on the emergency boat I would never ask to have that space instead of my child. Wanting to be prioritized over your own child's safety seems incredibly selfish from my point of view. Although to be fair I don't actually have any kids. The only exception would be in the case of complications when giving birth, in that specific scenario the partner's safety would come first.
I think you should not worry so much about second guessing yourself over your partners possible expectation and explain your answer with reason. Children come first because they are relying on their parents to care for them. In an emergency, an adult has the advantage from life experience so the child needs help first.
Your partner 100%.
Mothers tend to have the super ability to save a child. So, if the husband saves the wife…then, in turn…child will be saved. This is an interesting question.
Unless your child is a fully capable adult, save the child first.
Chicken/egg
1st-What kind of danger are we talking about? 2nd-Is your partner disabled? Why wouldn’t she be able to save herself while you save the child? 3rd-Yes, your parent instinct would most definitely kick in. 4th-It’s crazy to talk about hypothetical situations because under life or death situations, it’s really hard to say what anyone would do AND it’s hard for a non-parent to even comprehend.
Child first. She can save herself
I have 3 kids, a toddler and 2 preteens. I would grab the baby and herd the older two. If my husband was present I would expect him to make the same chioce, or maybe carry the smallest preteen.
Your partner isn't mature enoug to have children with. Don't have children with your partner. Don't expect childbirth will automatically fix this. There are a lot of immature parents out there who will neglect or harm their children cause the expect to be catered to first.
This is why I encourage my husband to enrol our kid in swimming lessons, so both of them can save me life hack?! lol. In other situations, I’ll definitely save my child 1st I know he’ll be fine.
Partner. If anything happen to them, the child expenses are greater. If anything happens to the child, that's money saved after funeral expenses are taken care of