Who would you save first?

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

F*****g kids these days.

Wow :noway: what a great thread! Why would you be sitting there wondering that, then post it on a forum? Very very odd!

I think I'm a little more concerned about people who AREN'T thinking about this, especially if they frequently traverse a road that's near to water where this could foreseeabley, and does, happen.
Better to have a plan and be prepared than not.

I have all possible disaster scenarios already mapped out and know exactly what I would do in each situation...and every time I'm not able to save you!

The car, obviously.

good answer

Quite frankly anyone who admits to choosing one over the other is an a-hole.

If you can firmly say that you would rather save your children than your SO then you are saying you don't love your SO as much as your children. In which case you should split up.

On the other hand, if you can firmly say that you would rather save your SO than your children then you are saying you don't love your children as much as your SO. In which case you should rather have just stayed childless.

The only reasonable answer to this question is "I don't know". If you think I'm talking bs then tell your SO to his/her face that you would save your children first. I bet most of you don't have the guts to do that. And if you don't have the guts to tell your SO that then you probably don't trust him/her the way he or she may trust you.

That's funny. I think you are hilarious, and I may be reading into things but will from this point forward assume you are not a parent, but will explain myself anyway. I have irrational fears, so my husband and I have discussed the "me or them" scenario and have agreed on them for the following reasons
1) our kids could pull us through the loss of our partner, but our partner could never shake the blame of "I don't have my son because I chose you." There in lies too much blame and too much guilt.
2) We have both lived through many experiences, our children should get the opportunity to do the same.
3) We both have some survival instincts that our 3 year old does not, which means that in a scenario of a water accident like this one if we take the child first we all have a greater chance of survival. Husband and I both swam and both know cpr, so you take the one who cannot hold their breath as long and cannot survive without oxygen as long first with the hopes that the capacity that the other one has along with your training will save all three of you.
4) and this really goes back to #3, as adults we have a greater potental to be able to save ourselves or survive trauma then our child.

The child always comes first.

I saw this same thing on another forum and found some of the answers funny...they were meant to be funny btw.

What I did find odd was alot of men said they'd save their SO first?!

I'd kill my husband if he saved the kids over me...

You're in a car with your SO and kids, the driver loses control and ends up driving into a lake.

Who would you save first?

I'd save my kids , youngest first as he would have the least chance. Husband can take care of himself.

All else being equal, and assuming we're talking minor children (still growing) I'd prioritize in the same manner. The idea being that the more developed, older bodies would be able to withstand the situation better. Of course, once I got one up, I'd be going right back down for the next.

But if things start changing up, then the response changes with the situation. If you asked this question of my parents, for example, I'd hope they would both go for each other first, the reason being that my brother and I are both active duty military, with more robust, durable bodies than my parents who are, shall we say, not so young and durable, anymore.

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine?

THIS /\ /\ /\ /\

Fo Realz