# Baby vs Pets



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

A bit of a random, and maybe controversial, question... for a change .

Well, a while back I was having a conversation with a friend about animals and animal rights/conservation. She is very broody over babies but doesn't like animals and can't understand why anyone would bother with them. She was getting a bit annoyed with me after I said I would prefer to give money to animal charities instead of people ones and thought I was being silly so she posed the question:

"What would you do if you came home one day and your and your neighbour's house was on fire, your pet was trapped in your house and the neighbour's baby was trapped alone in it's house. Who would you try and save first?"

I think she was expecting me to go back on myself. Let's just say she was disgusted with my answer .

Am I the only one though? What would you do?


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2011)

Well if both me and hubby we're here, I'd get hubby to rescue the baby (as he is alot stronger then me and I would panic too much) and id get my pets, then I would contact social services and report the woman for leaving the baby alone in the first place


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

malibu said:


> Well if both me and hubby we're here, I'd get hubby to rescue the baby (as he is alot stronger then me and I would panic too much) and id get my pets, then I would contact social services and report the woman for leaving the baby alone in the first place


That's cheating .


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Last time we had a debate like this it got VERY heated 

I would save the child.

I love my dogs, I give to animal and human charities but If I had to choose between a humans life and my dogs and there was no alternative solution I would choose the human.


----------



## ebonymagic (Jun 18, 2010)

I would rescue small person first, then the pet. 

Having been in a situation where my cat was potentially dead because of a kitchen fire, its not a decision I take lightly because when they discovered my cat wasn't breathing I was devastated. But thank god for fire men, they gave her oxygen and she survived.


----------



## thedogsmother (Aug 28, 2008)

I would save the child first, I love my animals but I have to say I value human life more highly.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

Fleur said:


> Last time we had a debate like this it got VERY heated
> 
> I would save the child.
> 
> I love my dogs, I give to animal and human charities but If I had to choose between a humans life and my dogs and there was no alternative solution I would choose the human.


Didn't realise it had been done before.

See for me it was a stupid question to ask because it is not even about a pet versus a baby, it's between a helpless being that is MY responsibility vs one that is not. If she had asked me to chose between my pet and my baby then that would have been a bigger moral dilemma.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I would save the child 1st every time.


----------



## Cranmer (Aug 28, 2011)

Did anyone else think this was going to be about Babys vs Animals in some sort of round robin event with the winner taking home a Terrys Chocolate Orange?! 

I cant help but feel a tad cheated.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Fleur said:


> Last time we had a debate like this it got VERY heated
> 
> I would save the child.
> 
> I love my dogs, I give to animal and human charities but If I had to choose between a humans life and my dogs and there was no alternative solution I would choose the human.


I remember that time as well.

certainly, without any doubt at all....... the baby.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

My children would have to come first but I would do my damndest to get back in to rescue my pets (or any animal for that matter)
Though I'll be controversial here & say I would rescue my animals before an adult human stranger, but babies & children would come first


----------



## Golgotha_tramp (Feb 27, 2011)

My family come first.

To be fair, from a logical perspective I am more likely to be successful saving my pets too as I know my house, where they would be, they would come to me etc. where as the neighbours house is unknown.

but, I don't actually know what I would do. I would only know in that situation.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Set_Nights said:


> A bit of a random, and maybe controversial, question... for a change .
> 
> Well, a while back I was having a conversation with a friend about animals and animal rights/conservation. She is very broody over babies but doesn't like animals and can't understand why anyone would bother with them. She was getting a bit annoyed with me after I said I would prefer to give money to animal charities instead of people ones and thought I was being silly so she posed the question:
> 
> ...





Set_Nights said:


> Didn't realise it had been done before.
> 
> See for me it was a stupid question to ask because it is not even about a pet versus a baby, *it's between a helpless being that is MY responsibility vs one that is not*. If she had asked me to chose between my pet and my baby then that would have been a bigger moral dilemma.


Just because another human, baby, child or adult, isn't your 'responsibility' doesn't mean you don't have some responsibility to them.
Especially if a child is in danger I believe we should all do what we can to help them - no matter what the consequences.
And if the question was between your own child and your own animal you wouldn't have any moral dilemma - I can guarantee you that as a mother you wouldn't even stop to think before throwing yourself into the burning house containing your baby over the one containing your pet.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> My children would have to come first but I would do my damndest to get back in to rescue my pets (or any animal for that matter)
> Though I'll be controversial here & say I would rescue my animals before an adult human stranger, but babies & children would come first


The question was for your neighbours child, not yours. I think it's a completetly different story when it is your own child.

I can understand why people would save humans/babies first though, I don't think either answer is wrong... just a difference of opinion.


----------



## purple_x (Dec 29, 2010)

I really hope I dont sound like a bad person here but I would save my pets.
My animals are mostly (the rodents) in cages so have no way of escaping the flames/smoke, the bunnies could run to a different part of the house. I couldn't leave them to die, they are my responsibility and they rely on me to take care of them.

Also the reason why I would save my animals is that there would be plenty of other people to go and save a baby.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

Fleur said:


> Just because another human, baby, child or adult, isn't your 'responsibility' doesn't mean you don't have some responsibility to them.


I know. I would still try to save the child even at risk to myself (I think you'd have to be a right selfish/heartless bastard not to!)... but I would get my dog out first.



> And if the question was between your own child and your own animal you wouldn't have any moral dilemma - I can guarantee you that as a mother you wouldn't even stop to think before throwing yourself into the burning house containing your baby over the one containing your pet.


Indeed. I am not a mother but I don't doubt that I would save my own baby before I saved pets. Who knows, maybe having my own children would change my priorities on other people's babies too... but I won't know until the time comes.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

purple_x said:


> I really hope I dont sound like a bad person here but I would save my pets.
> My animals are mostly (the rodents) in cages so have no way of escaping the flames/smoke, the bunnies could run to a different part of the house. I couldn't leave them to die, they are my responsibility and they rely on me to take care of them.
> 
> *Also the reason why I would save my animals is that there would be plenty of other people to go and save a baby*.


But for the purpose of this thread you are the only person there to save the baby and your animals so which one wold you go to 1st?


----------



## skyblue (Sep 15, 2010)

a baby could grow older and cure cancer,aids and many other diseases,it could grow to be the person to end all wars,it could invent the craft that makes space travel a reality..the list is endless....what-ever i think of my dogs i have to think of the bigger picture


----------



## WelshYorkieLover (Oct 16, 2011)

My furkids would come first everytime! Nobody else would risk their lives to save them. They're my responsibility and I love them with all my heart. My fiance and I have already got a plan if we woke up and the house was on fire! First we'd smash our window and throw the duvet and pillows out, the cats would then be thrown out (lifted down as far as possible and then dropped) onto the duvet and pillows on the floor and then Millie would be put inside a sheet and we'd tie it so she wouldn't be able to get out of it and lower her down and then we'd get out ourselves. Now though we'd have to figure out a new plan for getting Kiki and the rest of the new little uns out now too lol.


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

I find this thread so depressing


----------



## H0lly (Jan 31, 2010)

Ok this is my opinion and if this makes me a bad person then so be it, but if i had to chose then i would save Dora, No logical reason to it but she means more to me than ANY human 

Sorry if this offends anyone


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

purple_x said:


> I really hope I dont sound like a bad person here but I would save my pets.
> My animals are mostly (the rodents) in cages so have no way of escaping the flames/smoke, the bunnies could run to a different part of the house. I couldn't leave them to die, they are my responsibility and they rely on me to take care of them.
> 
> Also the reason why I would save my animals is that there would be plenty of other people to go and save a baby.


Based on that answer, I'm assuming you don't have children?


----------



## natty01 (Sep 4, 2011)

the baby first


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

Baby, then my dog.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

H0lly said:


> Ok this is my opinion and if this makes me a bad person then so be it, but if i had to chose then i would save Dora, No logical reason to it but she means more to me than ANY human
> 
> Sorry if this offends anyone


What if it was Hannah and Olivia in the burning building?


----------



## H0lly (Jan 31, 2010)

Oh you fecker !! Go away - is a very difficult thread and a situation i really hope i am never ever in


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

DKDREAM said:


> I find this thread so depressing


Me too!

I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


----------



## Golgotha_tramp (Feb 27, 2011)

LisaZonda said:


> Me too!
> 
> I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
> I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


You are right, I am child free and I will not be shamed into feeling bad about that or my opinion.


----------



## H0lly (Jan 31, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> Me too!
> 
> I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
> I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


I think this basically sums the whole question up.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> Me too!
> 
> I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
> I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


That is entirely possible, maybe (quite probably) life experiences change your point of view. It is also only a hypothetical question and who knows, maybe when it came down to it we would feel differently from how we think. I don't see why it needs to be depressing/offensive though as nobody wishes any harm on the baby and I am sure most people would try to rescue it as soon as was possible.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Here we go again - just as in the "saving a kid v your pet from drowining" thread, I am sure that my first instinct would be to make sure my own family - and that includes my pets - were safe first.

What is so special about the human species that its progeny should be held up as more important than any other?

Yes, the kid might grow up to be a wonderkind that saves the whole human race by developing some kind of marvellous cure for something - but it's equally as possible that it will grow up into an evil little toad who beats up pensioners and rapes grandmothers.


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Golgotha_tramp said:


> You are right, I am child free and I will not be shamed into feeling bad about that or my opinion.


I'd just like to also add that I'm not trying to shame anyone into feeling bad about their opinion, I totally respect that we are all entitled to our own....I'm just saying it how it is.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Here we go again - just as in the "saving a kid v your pet from drowining" thread


I honestly didn't realise it had been done before , I just thought it was an interesting question.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Set_Nights said:


> The question was for your neighbours child, not yours. I think it's a completetly different story when it is your own child.
> 
> I can understand why people would save humans/babies first though, I don't think either answer is wrong... just a difference of opinion.


I realised that after I'd already written an essay so I deleted most of it. I'd rescue my neighbour's baby first, then go for the animals. Couldn't live with myself if I didn't try


----------



## Snippet (Apr 14, 2011)

I don't value a human life any more then an animal one. 

In that situation I would save my pets first as no one else would do it, and they've got n hope of escape they they live in a cage. After all, they are a part of my family. There will always be someone about to save the baby, but who cares about a cat and some rats?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Set_Nights said:


> I honestly didn't realise it had been done before , I just thought it was an interesting question.


Oh sorry - I didn't mean it like that.  I meant "here we go again" in that lots and lots of people are going to disagree with me, just as they did in the other thread.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Set_Nights said:


> I honestly didn't realise it had been done before , I just thought it was an interesting question.


Thats ok it was a long time ago and mostly different members on now.

Even if it was a neighbours child, infact any child it would have to be the child. I love my dogs dearly but a child is very different.


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

My dogs and for the reasons that spellweaver stated


----------



## DKDREAM (Sep 15, 2008)

the reason I said id save my neighbours child is because I have a good relationship with them and would save their child if it was life and death. think the question is abit unfair


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

LisaZonda said:


> Me too!
> 
> I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
> I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


But suppose it's your child in your house and your neighbours child in the other? Which would you save first then? I'm guessing it would be your own - so what is the difference to the neighbour's child in saving your own child or your own pet? The neighbour's child is going to be in the same amount of danger whether you are saving your own child or your pet before you save the neighbour's child. Why is it ok to leave the neighbour's child until second in one instance, but not in the other?


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> But suppose it's your child in your house and your neighbours child in the other? Which would you save first then? I'm guessing it would be your own - so what is the difference to the neighbour's child in saving your own child or your own pet? The neighbour's child is going to be in the same amount of danger whether you are saving your own child or your pet before you save the neighbour's child. Why is it ok to leave the neighbour's child until second in one instance, but not in the other?


For me personally I would always safe a child over an animal.
And you're quite right I would save my own child over a neighbours - my instinct to preserve my own would take over but I'm not sure the same instinct would kick in as strongly over my dogs.


----------



## Misi (Jul 13, 2009)

I don't have kids and have never wanted them, so I think yes that would definitely colour my decision. I would rescue my own pets first without a doubt. Like others have said, there are far more who speak out for children than small furries and many who think their lives are somehow less valid. I adore my mogs as much as I adore any person.


----------



## WelshYorkieLover (Oct 16, 2011)

LisaZonda said:


> Me too!
> 
> I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
> I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


If it was my kids then I'd save them as well as the pets obviously but if it was someone elses kids then my pets would come first!


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> But suppose it's your child in your house and your neighbours child in the other? Which would you save first then? I'm guessing it would be your own - so what is the difference to the neighbour's child in saving your own child or your own pet? The neighbour's child is going to be in the same amount of danger whether you are saving your own child or your pet before you save the neighbour's child. Why is it ok to leave the neighbour's child until second in one instance, but not in the other?


In that case I'd tell my neighbour to save their own kid while I save mine! 

On a serious note though, this is a very difficult one and I'm not saying there is a wrong or right answer, please don't misunderstand me as I'm not trying to say that people who choose their pet first are wrong, I would certainly have chosen my pet first before I had children too, however somebody earlier said "life experiences change your point of view" and I feel that is never more true than when you've had children.

I'd find it very difficult to live with myself whatever decision I made and I certainly hope that I, nor anybody here, ever have to make it...but for me personally my instinct would be to get the child out first.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Lets all hope we are never faced with this dilemma, i can imagine the feeling of letting your pet die but i could never imagine the feeling a parent must feel of losing their own child, either doesnt bear thinking about but the latter is something very different to me.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I'd save my own first, whether it was child or pet. I would then rescue other people's children and then other people's pets last.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

DKDREAM said:


> the reason I said id save my neighbours child is because I have a good relationship with them and would save their child if it was life and death. think the question is abit unfair


That's a different situation though as it's not a strangers child as was meant in the question. It was just a hypothetical question.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

I'd try and save both. I love my pets but couldnt let a helpless baby die. I'd rather they all survive and I went.

I'd have to save my babies and someone elses baby too. Sorry, have to cheat.

God, I pray no-one is ever in that situation. 

xxx


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

LisaZonda said:


> In that case I'd tell my neighbour to save their own kid while I save mine!
> 
> On a serious note though, this is a very difficult one and I'm not saying there is a wrong or right answer, please don't misunderstand me as I'm not trying to say that people who choose their pet first are wrong, I would certainly have chosen my pet first before I had children too, however somebody earlier said "life experiences change your point of view" and I feel that is never more true than when you've had children.
> 
> I'd find it very difficult to live with myself whatever decision I made and I certainly hope that I, nor anybody here, ever have to make it...but for me personally my instinct would be to get the child out first.


I agree when you have children then you certainly think differently, i can understand anyone saying they would save their pets first if they dont have children, anyone saying the same who has children would be very un-natural and disturbing to me.

If it was someone elses child i would still save them first because when you have children you hope someone would do the same, i couldnt imagine losing a child and certainly cant imagine the feeling of thinking that someone saved an animal and let my child die, that to a parent its truely unthinkable and un-imaginable.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I would save the baby first.
I would then try and save my pets.

I tried to imagine myself outside the burning houses. I hear a baby crying coming from one, and hear my cats crying coming from the other.

Instinct would kick in and I would go for the baby - I dont know if thats because I am a mother or not.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

MCWillow said:


> I would save the baby first.
> I would then try and save my pets.
> 
> I tried to imagine myself outside the burning houses. I hear a baby crying coming from one, and hear my cats crying coming from the other.
> ...


Ime sure it most certainly is. Ive actually had this conversation before and asked people with pets, without children to imagine how much love they have for their pets, most people feel the same about theirs but if they have children as well and feel more love for them just imagine how overwhelming that love for your child is.


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

See I think I've overthought this. 

My dogs have access to everytoom bar my spare room, so if there was a fire I'd grab the baby while calling my dogs if I'm lucky I'd be able to grab the bag that behind my back door with spare leads, blankets in and open the door and we all run out. The way my house is planned out I think that's be quite likely to happen if a fire was in kitchen I'd go out front way any other room the back way. 

Failing that grab the baby husband get the animals, or get baby out and if necessary go back for my animals.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

I've taken the crate out in case there is a fire, and Duke knows how to open our front door as it's on one of those yale locks? So I'm hoping if there was a fire instinct would over ride and Duke would open the front door to get out. He opens it sometimes to greet me in the morning, the bugger.


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

I would save my pet. I don't value human life above animal life, if anything I prefer animals to humans hehe! But seriously, my animals are just as equal to me as other family members, they would take priority over a neighbour in need.


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

Okay hypothetically...

What if you were asleep and you heard this noise, go downstairs and a fire had started where your kids and dogs are upstairs, you try and put the fire out by running the tap water but the tap breaks and the fire you have is electrical, so now you're downstairs the kitchen flooding and on fire then the window smashes open and a flock of pigeons fly in.

Who would you save first then?


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

Sorry but this is a horrible thread so depressing!


----------



## Golgotha_tramp (Feb 27, 2011)

The belly pork roasting in the oven!

Until you have had my pork belly you can't understand the love of it. It's unimaginable! :cornut:


----------



## NicoleW (Aug 28, 2010)

Golgotha_tramp said:


> The belly pork roasting in the oven!
> 
> Until you have had my pork belly you can't understand the love of it. It's unimaginable! :cornut:


LOL!! :biggrin:


----------



## lillynharry (Jan 23, 2010)

I'd save the baby, no matter if it was mine or a strangers baby! I was in a house fire as a very young child. The back boiler blew up in the middle of the night! Luckily my parents and neighbours saved us kids otherwise i wouldn't be here now!! The fireman found our little jackrussel, Patsy, hiding in the airing cupboard. She was ok, thankfully. I asked my daughter whos 14 who she would save. She said the baby too. We both love animals and id go into a burning building to save them but a helpless baby comes 1st. Would be heart breaking tho:frown2:


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

deffinantly my furkids no doubt about it no i dont have human kids but the 4 legged kind i do and they are my life. too me humans are not in anyway superior too animals and for me are the same we are all living creatures n i cant say i would rescue the baby because i wouldnt i would have too rescue mine they are my responsibility.


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2011)

I don't have children I have sadly lost two babies, and it's hard to say what I would do. 

Would I put my life in danger for someone else or someones child? no I don't think I would. I think I'd be too cowardly to die for someone/something I didn't feel anything for. Would I put my life in danger for my parents? sister? those I adore and love?.... without a shadow of a doubt I would.

Would I choose to save my mum, dad or sister over an unknown baby next door? yes I would!

Would I risk my life to save Buster or Millie of course I would. I'd do anything to save them.

Would I choose to save an unknown dog over and unknown baby? Nope I'd choose the baby.

call me selfish, sick, perverted whatever but I'd save the living creature who has saved me from myself many times and I must say that if my boy Buster was in any danger I would lay my life on the line for him. When I lost both of my babies (Miscarriage and Ectopic) Buster kept me safe, he gave me reason to carry on and to not give up. 

At the end of the day if Buster (my hero and reason for living) was in danger I'd do anything to save him. That doesn't mean I value the life of a human being any less than that of an animal but no I do not have kids and at this moment in my life my dogs are my children. I vowed to protect them and care and I will do so.


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

It would have to be my child before my pets

and...if it were a choice between say my neighbours children or my beautiful pets...it would be my neighbours children...

i so love my babies(dogs) but when you have seen a person loose her child ...nothing compares...im sorry xx


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

paddyjulie said:


> It would have to be my child before my pets
> 
> and...if it were a choice between say my neighbours children or my beautiful pets...it would be my neighbours children...
> 
> i so love my babies(dogs) *but when you have seen a person loose her child ...nothing compares*...im sorry xx


Totally agree with you there


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Id get the dogs first (coz they would be easy to retrieve), then the baby then Id go back and try and rescue the others if I had time. I would leave the door open for the cats but TBH I wouldnt risk my life trying to gather them all up coz Id end up a crispy critter!! I also wouldnt grab the little pets unless it was safe so they would be written off straight away Im afraid!
Although if it was easy to get the baby and harder to get the dogs Id probably get the baby first and dogs second (and forget about everyone else!).
I like to think I would be fairly logical about it.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Luckily my neighbours do not have any babies so I don't have to worry about it and can just save my dog


----------



## Cinnebar (Nov 8, 2011)

Oh dear, my neighbours don't have babies either but they are in their 80s so would probably need rescuing instead.
Yes I probably would rescue them before my dogs, but I would resent it


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Cinnebar said:


> Oh dear, my neighbours don't have babies either but they are in their 80s so would probably need rescuing instead.
> Yes I probably would rescue them before my dogs, but I would resent it


bless thats a worse dilemma easier to get a baby out than a fully grown person & in their 80's would have some random discussion with you first! (before anyone has a go my parents are that age)


----------



## Cinnebar (Nov 8, 2011)

You've got me laughing now as I imagine the conversation


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Cinnebar said:


> You've got me laughing now as I imagine the conversation


feel really mean now because you have given me the giggles - keep imagining trying to drag an oldie out of a burning building so can go & get pets whilst they are chatting away about something totally pointless :biggrin:


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Oh lord its worse thinking of conversation dad had with my son (when he was late for work) yesterday - I keep imagining this going on whilst he was trying to drag him out of the burning house:

Dad: I bought some Eccles cakes from tesco yesterday
Son: Did you grandad, good were they nice, am a bit late for work actually so see you tonight
Dad: Yes and would you believe there were nuts in them NUTS !
Son: Oh right
Dad: Yes NUTs - could kill someone you know, I checked the packet and it didn't say made in factory that had nuts so couldn't guarantee nut free
Son: Oh dear, good job your ok with nuts then grandad
Dad: well I might not have been I think I will take the packet back
Son: Yes yes ok then how many are left
Dad: None I have eaten them all otherwise would not know there were nuts in them all would I you daft lad
Son: Good point grandad!!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Oh lord its worse thinking of conversation dad had with my son (when he was late for work) yesterday - I keep imagining this going on whilst he was trying to drag him out of the burning house:
> 
> Dad: I bought some Eccles cakes from tesco yesterday
> Son: Did you grandad, good were they nice, am a bit late for work actually so see you tonight
> ...


:lol:

I hope you have ordered your son his halo and wings for Christmas


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> :lol:
> 
> I hope you have ordered your son his halo and wings for Christmas


Lol - says his grandad is a legend so never mind where the dog fits in on the saving stakes he would be before me!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Grandads are always legends - I lost mine 2 yrs ago in Feb - I was lucky to have him as long as I did - good on your son - he knows like I did, bless him x


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Grandads are always legends - I lost mine 2 yrs ago in Feb - I was lucky to have him as long as I did - good on your son - he knows like I did, bless him x


Aw yes very true grandparents are special, he's always been really close to my Dad won't even talk about the fact he's getting old now and won't be around forever.

Now we could really hijack the thread - who do you save your pets or your grandad!


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

My pets since I have no grandads to save 

In all honesty, I am a mother and I adore my little girl, however my pet's are also my children, so leaving them in a fire would be like leaving my daughter in a fire  and until I am in that situation (hoping I never will be) I can't say what I would do and who I would rescue first between my pets or my neighbours baby.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

LisaZonda said:


> Me too!
> 
> I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
> I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


I don't have children. As much as I adore my animals i think when it came down to it, its likely I would save the child. Even if its a neighbours. 

Again how likely is the situation?

If the choice was between my pets and my nephew and niece i would save them (nephew and neice) first too.

Just because a child isnt yours biologically doesnt mean we as a society don't have a responsibility to protect.

I do hope i never find myself in this situation as i would never forgive myself for either choice I made.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Set_Nights said:


> A bit of a random, and maybe controversial, question... for a change .
> 
> Well, a while back I was having a conversation with a friend about animals and animal rights/conservation. She is very broody over babies but doesn't like animals and can't understand why anyone would bother with them. She was getting a bit annoyed with me after I said I would prefer to give money to animal charities instead of people ones and thought I was being silly so she posed the question:
> 
> ...


Of course I would want to save my pet, it would kill me inside but theres no way in hell i'd sit back and let a baby die over a pet. If someone let my kid die that way, I'd be after revenge lets just say that.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Lets face it, you dont know what you would do til you were in that situation..
I always find it fascinating how many people are killed in fires after running back into buildings to save loved ones. Its like your primal instinct is to get out and only then do you think "oh ****! the kids/pets/granny!!", and try and save them.
On the reverse though you also get people who are swept to their deaths from jumping into rivers to save other peoples dogs..
Lets hope none of us ever have to find out what we would do!!


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

I really, really couldn't say what I'd do in that situation. All opinions on either side are equally valid. I suppose I'd try to save both, but which one would I run to first ... I don't know. Couldn't save the fish, so sadly they'd be left to their fate, but my dogs, my family ... neighbour's child ...

All I can say is that I hope I never, ever have to find out.


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

to me they are equally in need of saving and i would try and get them both out no question even if it killed me an animal is no less in need of living than a baby just because it is a human


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

raggie doll said:


> to me they are equally in need of saving and i would try and get them both out no question even if it killed me an animal is no less in need of living than a baby just because it is a human


They are both in need thats obvious, but its an innocent baby that prolly cant even walk, would you be able to sleep happily along side your pet knowing you killed a human being and what if your dog got sick a yr later when the child has ninety odd yrs at best. Geez its not even comparible sad as it is.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Waterlily said:


> They are both in need thats obvious, but its an innocent baby that prolly cant even walk, would you be able to sleep happily along side your pet knowing you killed a human being and what if your dog got sick a yr later when the child has ninety odd yrs at best. Geez its not even comparible sad as it is.


Maybe it depends on how much of a sociopath you are then?? You could argue that with the current world population we really dont need another person to live 90 years, whereas a dog or cat living for a few years would take up less resources!!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> Maybe it depends on how much of a sociopath you are then?? You could argue that with the current world population we really dont need another person to live 90 years, whereas a dog or cat living for a few years would take up less resources!!


If choosing a babys life over an animals is a sociopath then put those boots on, I'll wear em.


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

i think this s a touch subject cause i don't have kids for the reason as i would save my animal but the child is no more deserving than the animal


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

raggie doll said:


> i think this s a touch subject cause i don't have kids for the reason as i would save my animal but the child is no more deserving than the animal


so by that your saying that you'd put an animal equal in your home alongside your kids ? To bad if the dog bit the kid and you had to choose who to keep then aye  Sure hope the child wasnt naughty that day lol.


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

i don't have kids and have no intention of having them but i don't believe that humans are higher in the hierarchy an animal still needs saving no matter what i don't share your opinion that a child is more deserving of life than an animal again its just my opinion


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> If choosing a babys life over an animals is a sociopath then put those boots on, I'll wear em.


Can I get those boots in a size 4 then?

Here's a slight variation - your partner or your neighbour's baby????


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Can I get those boots in a size 4 then?
> 
> Here's a slight variation - your partner or your neighbour's baby????


would always be the baby over anything with use of its legs lol. Men especially


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

Its the same as saying who would you go to first:
Brother/Sister
Daughter/Son
Daughter/Granddaughter etc

Until in the situation, and I pray to god nobody ever is that I personally think that nobody would know what to do, yes 'motherly instinct' may kick in but so may fear/shock etc.

Different situation but when my baby was 18 months old she had a really bad seizure (almost died from it) I'm first aid trained, and I completely froze, and didn't know what to do.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> would always be the baby over anything with use of its legs lol. Men especially


Same here (not the men comment though - newly married so still loving the hubby! )

I would say the same thing back, if the roles were reversed I would expect my husband to save the child first.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

raggie doll said:


> i don't have kids and have no intention of having them but i don't believe that humans are higher in the hierarchy an animal still needs saving no matter what i don't share your opinion that a child is more deserving of life than an animal again its just my opinion


I Van see what you are saying as you dont have kids, but if you did then you would think differently, no way would any animal ever come before you child.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> I Van see what you are saying as you dont have kids, but if you did then you would think differently, no way would any animal ever come before you child.


That's not totally true, some parents have depression/disappointed in the child etc and arn't always thinking straight.

I always hate it when people say to me that every mother knows their own baby from the moment they are born which is also not true.


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

my cats are my babies they aren't a replacement cause i don't need or want kids so i would always choose them over anyone


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

WelshOneEmma said:


> Just because a child isnt yours biologically doesnt mean we as a society don't have a responsibility to protect.


I totally agree with you, I would like to think that whether someone has a child of their own or not they would still choose to save the baby first.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

LisaZonda said:


> I totally agree with you, I would like to think that whether someone has a child of their own or not they would still choose to save the baby first.


Many people will, however some will choose to save their 'babies' first wether furry or not, one good thing about this thread is that it has been a debate rather then an argument. I agree with many comments and can see things from both sides.


----------



## portiaa (Dec 10, 2010)

I don't see a human life as worth any more than a pets-both are equal in my eyes. 

But since the pets would be mine, I'd have a responsibility to them. I'd be their only hope-most would try to save the baby, no one would risk their own life's for my pets. I'd be their only hope. 

I see my pets as family, I'm sure most/all of you would save your family over a neighbours family. That's how I see it.


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

Bloody hell! I can't believe anyone would let a kid burn to death to save there pets! Some people need their heads looking at lol. How could you live with the fact a child lost it's life for an animal . If I had the choice to save a random kid or all the cats in the world.... I would choose the kid everytime! Hunan life is more valuable in my eyes.


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

I do understand why people say that all living creatures are equal, however if faced with the situation we are all discussing then I'm interested to know from those who would save their pet first if there is a line people draw...if so where would that line be?

For example...most on here are talking about their dog or cat, what if your pet was a hamster?, we could scale it down further....what if your pet was a spider or a stick insect?

So if all living creatures are equal then I'm assuming you would still save your pet spider or stick insect over a baby or child?

If your answer to that is yes then in my opinion you are wrong, I appreciate that you are also entitled to your opinion too....but I'm just damn pleased you're not my neighbour.

Also, I'm assuming you must be a vegetarian too....after all, should an animal die so that you can enjoy a bacon sarnie?!


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

> So if all living creatures are equal then I'm assuming you would still save your pet spider or stick insect over a baby or child?


I wondered this too but I imagine it is quite species selective.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> Also, I'm assuming you must be a vegetarian too....after all, should an animal die so that you can enjoy a bacon sarnie?!


Wtf has been vegetarian got to do with whether or not someone chooses an animal over a baby ? A quick thinking decision between two living things in a tragic incident is totally diff to the cruelty in some slaughter houses etc. This isnt a slag off veggies thread but feel free to make one.


----------



## Set_Nights (Sep 13, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> Also, I'm assuming you must be a vegetarian too....after all, should an animal die so that you can enjoy a bacon sarnie?!


Not realy valid. I would save MY dog first, I didn't say I would save a random dog over a baby. The difference is that I see my dog as part of my family, not "just" an animal...


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

'people need their heads testing......' ok well someone went to childish pretty quickly you can't say someone needs their head testing because they don't share your own personal view control freak much!


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Waterlily said:


> Wtf has been vegetarian got to do with whether or not someone chooses an animal over a baby ? A quick thinking decision between two living things in a tragic incident is totally diff to the cruelty in some slaughter houses etc. This isnt a slag off veggies thread but feel free to make one.


I'm certainly not trying to make it a slag off veggies thread....you have no idea if I even eat meat myself!...however yes I can see your point on that one and I probably should have thought that last sentence through a little more, fair enough. 
However, I still stand by the rest of my post regarding the scenario being discussed in the thread.


----------



## portiaa (Dec 10, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> Also, I'm assuming you must be a vegetarian too....after all, should an animal die so that you can enjoy a bacon sarnie?!


 please explain how this is relevant to the question.

ETA- sorry just read post above


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

portiaa said:


> please explain how this is relevant to the question.
> 
> ETA- sorry just read post above


See above comment I made 

ETA Sorry just seen your edit lol


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

i never hope i`m in this kind of situation. 
would have to be a child everytime , sorry folks , i couldnt have it on my concience for saving an animal over a child , i couldnt put another parent through that kind of loss.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I feel quite bad about saying this but it is the truth I would save my Bens life above anyone else,I know he would lay his life on the line for me,he has been there for me through 3 years of serious illness where humans havent,so nothing would come before him.


----------



## GillyR (Nov 2, 2009)

Not read all this, as i can't be arsed, sorry 

Imagine, YOU are the baby in the house....


----------



## GillyR (Nov 2, 2009)

suewhite said:


> I feel quite bad about saying this but it is the truth I would save my Bens life above anyone else,I know he would lay his life on the line for me,he has been there for me through 3 years of serious illness where humans havent,so nothing would come before him.


I get what you are saying sue, my molly came to me after my second son died, and was, and still is the best medicine ever....but i know i could not live with myself if the baby died because i didn't save him/her.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

one of my close friends daughter died in a housefire few years back now thank god her baby wasnt present going by some of the replies here
Mum killed in hair salon fire. - Free Online Library


----------



## Shazach (Dec 18, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> Lets all hope we are never faced with this dilemma, i can imagine the feeling of letting your pet die but i could never imagine the feeling a parent must feel of losing their own child, either doesnt bear thinking about but the latter is something very different to me.


I'm with you there, I'd torture myself forever over my pet, but I couldn't let someone go through the pain of losing a child if I could prevent it.



NicoleW said:


> Okay hypothetically...
> 
> What if you were asleep and you heard this noise, go downstairs and a fire had started where your kids and dogs are upstairs, you try and put the fire out by running the tap water but the tap breaks and the fire you have is electrical, so now you're downstairs the kitchen flooding and on fire then the window smashes open and a flock of pigeons fly in.
> 
> Who would you save first then?


Erm, the pigeons?:lol:

TBH my neighbours are 80ish too, so in reality I'd be one of the ones on this thread trying to hustle them out the door whilst they tell me about the time Maud (who???) went to bed without her nightie on.....:lol::lol:

Plus on the saving the OH question does it count that when the fire alarm went off in a hotel we stayed at, I'd got the dog's collar and lead on BEFORE putting my jeans on and dragging the OH out of bed....


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

diablo said:


> one of my close friends daughter died in a housefire few years back now thank god her baby wasnt present going by some of the replies here
> Mum killed in hair salon fire. - Free Online Library


I clicked "like" but obviously I mean I like the part saying "thank god her baby wasn't present going by some of the replies on here"
I just read the article and that is so tragic, life is very cruel sometimes


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Imo human life.especially children's comes before animals


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

LisaZonda said:


> I clicked "like" but obviously I mean I like the part saying "thank god her baby wasn't present going by some of the replies on here"
> I just read the article and that is so tragic, life is very cruel sometimes


it is , she was a lovely young woman too seeing what it did to her parents i couldnt stand back and watch another person die i couldnt live with it on my concience. i hope i am never in this kind of situation , ever. but i`d like to think my kids would come first if it happened and i werent around , of course my animals are very important to me but i value human life more.


----------



## GillyR (Nov 2, 2009)

LisaZonda said:


> I'm certainly not trying to make it a slag off veggies thread....you have no idea if I even eat meat myself!...however yes I can see your point on that one and I probably should have thought that last sentence through a little more, fair enough.
> However, I still stand by the rest of my post regarding the scenario being discussed in the thread.[/QUOT
> 
> I think Lisa was trying to ask those that are saying animal/child are of equal value...and they would pick the animal blah blah... are those veggies....because if not, then they are being slighty hypocritical ... surely if animals are equal to humans, then you shouldnt be eating them...
> I know you are a veggie water lily btw :biggrin:


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

Marley boy said:


> Bloody hell! I can't believe anyone would let a kid burn to death to save there pets! Some people need their heads looking at lol. How could you live with the fact a child lost it's life for an animal . If I had the choice to save a random kid or all the cats in the world.... I would choose the kid everytime! Hunan life is more valuable in my eyes.


Some people see their pets as their children, and I think it is really unfair to make people feel guilty for the choice they make. There isn't a right or wrong answer to this question.


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

GillyR said:


> LisaZonda said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certainly not trying to make it a slag off veggies thread....you have no idea if I even eat meat myself!...however yes I can see your point on that one and I probably should have thought that last sentence through a little more, fair enough.
> ...


----------



## GillyR (Nov 2, 2009)

malibu said:


> Some people see their pets as their children, and I think it is really unfair to make people feel guilty for the choice they make. There isn't a right or wrong answer to this question.


I agree.... for me, i think it is a moral dilemma, and as i was once a baby myself....


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> Me too!
> 
> I must say though, anybody that chooses an animal first clearly doesn't have children, I can totally guarantee if you had them....your answer would be the child without a moments hesitation.
> I love animals as much as anybody could, however...I'm also a mother.


Although you are right about people who would save an animal doesnt have children..what about if someone elses child was about to die 

Me personally any of my children would come miles before any animal and i would fight to save them first not a slither of doubt in my mind!


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Although you are right about people who would save an animal doesnt have children..what about if someone elses child was about to die
> 
> Me personally any of my children would come miles before any animal and i would fight to save them first not a slither of doubt in my mind!


Actually somebody who is severley depressed/struugling with having a baby may actually save the animal first, I heard about a case that happened to someone in Germany (luckily all survived) until we have walked in the shoes of every 'parent' then we can't say that everyone who is a parent would save the child first (theirs or anyone elses) x


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Although you are right about people who would save an animal doesnt have children..what about if someone elses child was about to die
> 
> Me personally any of my children would come miles before any animal and i would fight to save them first not a slither of doubt in my mind!


I'm not sure if you mean my child v someone else's child...if so then my children come first, naturally if push comes to shove I look after my own first, but when its animal v baby/child then I would save the child...knowing what losing a child can do to parents I personally wouldn't be able to live with myself if I hadn't done everything in my power to save him/her.


----------



## GillyR (Nov 2, 2009)

Not sure if it is about if you are a parent or not......that should not really come into it...it is about doing what is right, and not being selfish...

I love my dogs, i would want to save them first...(as i love them, and maybe not love the child) and saving them would be to 'save' me the pain of losing them...but being a human...and once a child ( like we all was ) my morals would tell me to save the child first....most animal species would do the same might i add.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> I'm not sure if you mean my child v someone else's child...if so then my children come first, naturally if push comes to shove I look after my own first, but when its animal v baby/child then I would save the child...knowing what losing a child can do to parents I personally wouldn't be able to live with myself if I hadn't done everything in my power to save him/her.


Oh god yeah i would save my child first over anyone elses! No doubt about it!


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

I don't even think it's a case of would you run into a burning building to save someone else child or pet... I think the important question is would you run into a burning building full stop?

Would you risk your life to save a child/pet regardless? Its easy to say "hell yeah I would" but in that situation would you really be brave enough to run into a burning building? I don't think I would to be fair. I don't think I'd risk my life in that way 1) I am clumsy 2) I would hate the thought if something happened my parents would have lost their 'baby' and 3) I am not a mather and sorry but I just don't feel maternal over another persons child. Would I run into a burning building for my parents, sister or Beagles in a heartbeat... without a 2nd thought.

I don't even think it comes down to selfishness or the fact that "people need their heads looking at" it comes down to the pure fact I wouldn't risk my life to save someone else. 

I remember Hollyoaks when Steph died in the burning building I forget who she saved all I remember was the grieving family she left behind and that in itself would be enough to stop me risking my life.

I was a member of St John Ambulance and the one thing we were taught was never put your life in danger for another life it causes more danger for the professionals who need to rescue another body. OK slightly off topic but it's easy to say in text that you'd lay down your life for another different in reality though.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

I hardly ever leave my girls alone anyway so the situation shouldn't arise BUT if it did I would save the child first and my neighbour loves my dogs so would save them...everyone sorted  
I do give to animal charities before childrens charities though as everyone gives to childrens charities so i figure that they get far more than animals so I shall continue to give to those


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Beagle Mafia said:


> I don't even think it's a case of would you run into a burning building to save someone else child or pet... I think the important question is would you run into a burning building full stop?
> 
> Would you risk your life to save a child/pet regardless? Its easy to say "hell yeah I would" but in that situation would you really be brave enough to run into a burning building?


With someone else's child then I would like to think that yes I would be brave enough, having never been in this situation I can only say what I think I would do of course.
When it comes to my children then I can say 100% and without a shadow of doubt yes I would be brave enough.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

I am very close to a family that is losing their daughter at the moment, i have never seen anguish like that in the eyes of someone losing an animal.

Of course for me it would be the child (sorry haven't read the whole thread)


----------



## ebonymagic (Jun 18, 2010)

When I had my kitchen fire I was out with #2son walking my dog. We were gone less than 10 minutes, I had only had my kitten a month and she hadn't been let out.

While sitting on my neighbours doorstep watching the fire men, I told them exactly where they would find her (behind the sofa in the front room). Nobody listened to me because I was verging on hysterics. Thank God for thermal imaging cameras, guess where they found her? 

The image of seeing my kitten virtually lifeless will never leave me, fortunately the firemen resuscitated her (not the paramedics who were there). It was that news worthy that we ended up in the local newspaper with a picture of my kitten.

I would do all in my power to rescue all occupants of a household IF it was safe to do so, there is no way I would put myself in danger because I have kids who need a Mum.


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

ebonymagic said:


> The image of seeing my kitten virtually lifeless will never leave me, fortunately the firemen resuscitated her (not the paramedics who were there). It was that news worthy that we ended up in the local newspaper with a picture of my kitten.


It must have been a terrible thing to see, so pleased she made 

Firefighters are amazing, I have nothing but admiration for the job they do....to me they are heroes, I'm possibly a little biased as my dad was a Fire Officer for 20 years, I know the things they have to do and what they witness...I personally don't think I couldn't handle it.
Same goes of course for all emergency services...nothing but admiration and respect for all of them.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I don't have kids (thank god) but if it was my child or my dog, child then dog, but anyone else and I'm sorry I don't really care what anyone thinks, Dillon would come first to anyone else whatever their age.


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

Before I had children, my then mother in law used to ask me what I would do if the dog and baby didn't get on..... I always answered that I would have the baby adopted as I would never give up on my dog :biggrin:
Then I had my first son - I would go to hell and back for my dogs, but I would do it a million times over for my kids too.....

My best friend was once in a really terrible situation. She had gone swimming in the sea with two of her three children and her nephew. Her sister was on the beach with my best friend's other child who was too young to go in the sea.
They all got into difficulties. My best friend knew she could probably save 2 children, but if she tried to save three they would potentially all drown. She made the heart rending decision to save one of her own kids and her nephew because her sister only had the one child and couldn't have any more...... luckily, at the last moment, a stranger came over and helped and all of them got out safe and sound an unscathed - but for those few terrifying seconds, I cannot begin to imagine the anguish she went through - mother love versus sibling love being tested to the limit. 

Let's just all hope and pray none of us are put in the terrible situation of having to choose.


----------



## Cazza1974 (Sep 23, 2009)

My girls come first every time,as much as I love the fur babies.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

I always find it interesting in these debates that those that actually have children and who also have animals that they clearly love always say their children would come first. 

I love my oscar but i could not live with the the fact that i would cause the worst level of grief imaginable to another human being by saving him over their child.

I have to confess i simply don't understand anyone who sais otherwise but i understand thats my take on things


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

I'd save my pet, no question at all. I actually could care less about babies/children.


----------



## ginge2804 (Nov 5, 2011)

Well, im young, have no kids, and one dog. 
MY baby doggy is the first person other than myself that I have ever been responsible for, and the love that I feel for my Molly, is so overwelming. 
So if I was faced with my dog or my Molly, I would say my Molly EVERY time. 
Although obvs if I didn't have to choose one, I would try and save both, but my baby Molly would come first.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

happysaz133 said:


> I'd save my pet, no question at all. I actually could care less about babies/children.


I know you are totally entitled to your own opinions but in my eyes its just wrong!


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

ClaireLouise said:


> I know you are totally entitled to your own opinions but in my eyes its just wrong!


There should be no right or wrong answer to this, your children are your babies, your pets are your babies. My daughter and my pets are my world, and nobody will ever come close to them, however I am not in the situation and can honestly say I wouldn't know what to do, after seeing how I was with my daughters seizure, I think I would be too shocked to do anything :-(


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

malibu said:


> There should be no right or wrong answer to this, your children are your babies, your pets are your babies. My daughter and my pets are my world, and nobody will ever come close to them, however I am not in the situation and can honestly say I wouldn't know what to do, after seeing how I was with my daughters seizure, I think I would be too shocked to do anything :-(


Ah thats where I will argue. I am entitled to my opinion which is I believe its wrong. I did it respectfully while stating I also understand others are entitled to an opinon BUT IN MY OPINION its wrong


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

ClaireLouise said:


> Ah thats where I will argue. I am entitled to my opinion which is I believe its wrong. I did it respectfully while stating I also understand others are entitled to an opinon BUT IN MY OPINION its wrong


To be honest, I just hope and pray that none of us will ever be in the situation to find out :-(

Nobody should feel bad about what choice they would make, just hope they never have to make the choice


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

ClaireLouise said:


> I know you are totally entitled to your own opinions but in my eyes its just wrong!


I can't see how someone would save someone else's child over your own pet!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

happysaz133 said:


> I can't see how someone would save someone else's child over your own pet!


because I would imagine the most painful thing in the world would be losing a child. Far worst than losing a pet or any other relative and I couldnt put a mother or father throught it. I have pets. I love them all dearly but I believe when you have a child it put it all in to perspective. I parents love for a child is overwhelming and if you speak to any parent they would tell you the same. Children are the most important thing on earth IMO and I like you would have said that when I didnt have any children because you dont understand the true strength of the feeling till you have your own little monster.


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

Ah, but to people like me, who can't have children, pets ARE my children. My dog died a few weeks ago and I was suicidal. I know I don't have children and never will, but I can imagine the pain is similar when you feel so strongly about pets.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

happysaz133 said:


> Ah, but to people like me, who can't have children, pets ARE my children. My dog died a few weeks ago and I was suicidal. I know I don't have children and never will, but I can imagine the pain is similar when you feel so strongly about pets.


And its totally right to feel like that. Its you. We all have different opinions. I cant feel the same, to me its wrong just as to you the way I feel is wrong. Were not all the same.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

happysaz133 said:


> Ah, but to people like me, who can't have children, pets ARE my children. My dog died a few weeks ago and I was suicidal. I know I don't have children and never will, but I can imagine the pain is similar when you feel so strongly about pets.


just (((((hugs))))) sometimes people with children do not understand how much our pets mean to us. Like i said earlier I've lost two babies its horrific and the one thing that got me through it was the unconditional love and protection of Buster. The day I give up on him is the day I give up on myself.


----------



## ebonymagic (Jun 18, 2010)

I can 100% say that I would be devastated whether I lost a pet or one of my sons. My fuzzy orange blob is also my child, I would have to prioritise.

I have a mother who taught me the fine art of level headedness in a hard situation.

Its a natural instinct for those who have small people to rescue them first because maturnal/ paternal instinct kicks in.

If your pets are your kids then naturally you would go for pets first.


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

Beagle Mafia said:


> just (((((hugs))))) sometimes people with children do not understand how much our pets mean to us. Like i said earlier I've lost two babies its horrific and the one thing that got me through it was the unconditional love and protection of Buster. The day I give up on him is the day I give up on myself.


Sorry you went through that  it's amazing the bond we can have with a pet, isn't it? I'm lucky I had family around me because I was in a very dark place, especially as my dog was too young to die (only 4), and I blamed myself. I'm better now, but you're right, some people just don't understand what they mean to us.


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

I have 2 children but I do also know how strongly we can feel for our pets, I have had lots of pet...all of which I loved with all my heart, I have maintained all through this discussion that I would always save a child before a pet, which is true, but I am torn with only one...I had a Berner which was in every way my 3rd child, we went through so much together, many hard times aswell as good times.
I can understand when people say they feel suicidal after losing a pet, I was the same when I lost koda and it was only my children that kept me going.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

happysaz133 said:


> Sorry you went through that  it's amazing the bond we can have with a pet, isn't it? I'm lucky I had family around me because I was in a very dark place, especially as my dog was too young to die (only 4), and I blamed myself. I'm better now, but you're right, some people just don't understand what they mean to us.


I'm OK  it just makes that bond with both my dogs that little stronger. My bond with Buster is amazingly strong and I can't imagine life without him. He has kept me going throughout a very traumatic few months.


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

Well all I can say is thank god In the real world (ie not on here) the majority of people would save a child over an animal. I would hate to live in a world where people value a dog or cats life over a humans. I love animals and I believe we have a duty to look after them, but I'm sorry if a dog dies yes it's owners are sad but If a child dies its parents, siblings, family, friends and community will mourn and miss them for the rest of their life. I would without a shadow of a doubt save any child from a fire if I thought there was any chance that I could!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Marley boy said:


> Well all I can say is thank god In the real world (ie not on here) the majority of people would save a child over an animal.


You don't know that. You only surmise it because that is how you feel.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

Marley boy said:


> Well all I can say is thank god In the real world (ie not on here) the majority of people would save a child over an animal. I would hate to live in a world where people value a dog or cats life over a humans. I love animals and I believe we have a duty to look after them, but I'm sorry if a dog dies yes it's owners are sad but If a child dies its parents, siblings, family, friends and community will mourn and miss them for the rest of their life. I would without a shadow of a doubt save any child from a fire if I thought there was any chance that I could!


Unfortunately we live in a world where rape, muder, death, kidnapping etc happen on a daily basis, and until we are in the situation of any truly tragic event, I doubt most of the world would know how to feel. I have lost both a baby and a pet, and I can honestly say, I miss them both so much, even thinking about it breaks my heart


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> You don't know that. You only surmise it because that is how you feel.


Well you don't hear in news very often man saves cat from burning house and leaves child to die do ya? I'm quite confident when I say most people would save the child. If I'm wrong then bloody hell I'm going to be busy saving all the kids left to burn while the good Samaritan is rescuing the cat! Lol


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

Marley boy said:


> Well all I can say is thank god In the real world (ie not on here) the majority of people would save a child over an animal. I would hate to live in a world where people value a dog or cats life over a humans. I love animals and I believe we have a duty to look after them, but I'm sorry if a dog dies yes it's owners are sad but If a child dies its parents, siblings, family, friends and community will mourn and miss them for the rest of their life. I would without a shadow of a doubt save any child from a fire if I thought there was any chance that I could!


It's certainly not my fault people choose to have children, I choose to have pets, therefore I am responsible for their welfare. I have no duty at all to look out for someone else's child.

I love my animals far more than I love any human in this world. Even my own family who I live with.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

Marley boy said:


> Well you don't hear in news very often man saves cat from burning house and leaves child to die do ya? I'm quite confident when I say most people would save the child. If I'm wrong then bloody hell I'm going to be busy saving all the kids left to burn while the good Samaritan is rescuing the cat! Lol


I'm just happy that there is both people in the world who would save the baby and people who would save the pet


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

malibu said:


> I'm just happy that there is both people in the world who would save the baby and people who would save the pet


Got to agree - but I have a sneaking suspicion that the person saving the pet first will have saved the pet and gone in for the baby while the self-righteous "I could never save an animal over a human" brigade are still standing, shaking their heads in disapproval at the people who would rescue their pet first. :lol:

(Ducks and runs for cover  )


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Marley boy said:


> Well you don't hear in news very often man saves cat from burning house and leaves child to die do ya? I'm quite confident when I say most people would save the child. If I'm wrong then bloody hell I'm going to be busy saving all the kids left to burn while the good Samaritan is rescuing the cat! Lol


I'm sorry but I feel strongly about saving a pet, my dog is my life I trust him more than many people I know, I still say I would save him first.


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Got to agree - but I have a sneaking suspicion that the person saving the pet first will have saved the pet and gone in for the baby while the self-righteous "I could never save an animal over a human" brigade are still standing, shaking their heads in disapproval at the people who would rescue their pet first. :lol:
> 
> (Ducks and runs for cover  )


i dont usually disagree with u but lol i dont think anyone has been self righteous in the last few pages good points from all sides.


----------



## Marley boy (Sep 6, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Got to agree - but I have a sneaking suspicion that the person saving the pet first will have saved the pet and gone in for the baby while the self-righteous "I could never save an animal over a human" brigade are still standing, shaking their heads in disapproval at the people who would rescue their pet first. :lol:
> 
> (Ducks and runs for cover  )


The op said you could only save one though didn't it? If I could save both I would get the kid first and if it wasnt totally a total lost cause I would then save the animal. I would risk my life to save any child but I would think more than twice to save my Marley if it meant risking my life.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> "I could never save an animal over a human" brigade are still standing, shaking their heads in disapproval at the people who would rescue their pet first. :lol:
> 
> (Ducks and runs for cover  )


Or is selling their story to Heat Magazine 

(Ducks and runs for cover with you...  It's a very cozy hole )


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Marley boy said:


> Well you don't hear in news very often man saves cat from burning house and leaves child to die do ya? I'm quite confident when I say most people would save the child. If I'm wrong then bloody hell I'm going to be busy saving all the kids left to burn while the good Samaritan is rescuing the cat! Lol


Totally agree with everything you have said!

I honestly cant believe some would save an animal before saving a child


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ClaireLouise said:


> i dont usually disagree with u but lol i dont think anyone has been self righteous in the last few pages good points from all sides.


Mmmm - there have been good points on both sides, but there have also been a few of the "I can't believe anyone can believe something different to me" type posts.

The arguments I find most convincing are the ones from people such as yourself who explain that those of us who have never had children might change our minds if we had. I've never had kids so I don't know whether that would be true, or whether I'd still feel the same about rescuing my pet before someone else's child. At the moment, I feel as if my animals are far more important than someone else's child - but I know how much you, for example, love your pets and still argue that for a mother, children will always come first - so you've sown that little seed of, "hmm - maybe". Hope all that makes sense!


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Mmmm - there have been good points on both sides, but there have also been a few of the "I can't believe anyone can believe something different to me" type posts.
> 
> The arguments I find most convincing are the ones from people such as yourself who explain that those of us who have never had children might change our minds if we had. I've never had kids so I don't know whether that would be true, or whether I'd still feel the same about rescuing my pet before someone else's child. At the moment, I feel as if my animals are far more important than someone else's child - but I know how much you, for example, love your pets and still argue that for a mother, children will always come first - so you've sown that little seed of, "hmm - maybe". Hope all that makes sense!


yeah it makes sense an obviously i totally understand your point of view, be boring if we were all the same x


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Marley boy said:


> The op said you could only save one though didn't it? If I could save both I would get the kid first and if it wasnt totally a total lost cause I would then save the animal. I would risk my life to save any child but I would think more than twice to save my Marley if it meant risking my life.


And that's where we differ in a major way. I would risk my own life to save my animals - if they were in danger my only thought would be to save them and I would act completely without thinking about myself. And I'm speaking from experience here - I once confronted a gang of about 12 youths who had thrown a firework into our garden. I was so incensed at the danger to the staffie cross we had then I didn't realise the kind of danger I put myself in by running straight into the middle of them and threatening them what I would do if they ever did anything like that again. It wasn't until I was back in the house that I began to realise what could have happened ...........


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

I am astonished there is any dilemma 

It's no secret that I prefer dogs to humans - always have done - but the thought that I could allow a baby to die whilst I saved my pet is inconcievable

I would be devastated at losing any of my dogs in this way and pray that I never do - but I know if I allowed a child (or any human for that matter) to die when I had the capacity to save it's life would never allow me to rest peacefully in my bed ever again  - it must be bad enough when you know there is nothing you can do - but knowing you could have done something and didn't - sorry - but that doesn't sit well with my conscience at all


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

I think whichever way you look at it, not everyone is going to agree with what anyone else would do, and NOBODY know's what every person would do wether they are a parent or a non parent, as I stated earlier, I'm just glad I have never been in the situation, I pray that none of you ever are.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

swarthy said:


> I am astonished there is any dilemma
> 
> It's no secret that I prefer dogs to humans - always have done - but the thought that I could allow a baby to die whilst I saved my pet is inconcievable
> 
> I would be devastated at losing any of my dogs in this way and pray that I never do - but I know if I allowed a child (or any human for that matter) to die when I had the capacity to save it's life would never allow me to rest peacefully in my bed ever again  - it must be bad enough when you know there is nothing you can do - but knowing you could have done something and didn't - sorry - but that doesn't sit well with my conscience at all


I couldn't live with myself, if I sacrificed my dog for anyone.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

malibu said:


> I think whichever way you look at it, not everyone is going to agree with what anyone else would do, and NOBODY know's what every person would do wether they are a parent or a non parent, as I stated earlier, I'm just glad I have never been in the situation, I pray that none of you ever are.


i know i`d have to try , after sitting with people that lost their daughter in a house fire and god forbid if it were my own children like anyone , maternal instinct would absolutely kick in , i`d die for my kids i don`t know anyone that wouldn`t.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

diablo said:


> i know i`d have to try , after sitting with people that lost their daughter in a house fire and god forbid if it were my own children like anyone , maternal instinct would absolutely kick in , i`d die for my kids i don`t know anyone that wouldn`t.


Completely understand hun *hugs* however I also think that when faced in such a horrible thing, other instincts would kick in such as fear & shock, believe me I know, I nearly lost my 3 year old because I was too shocked too do anything when she was having a bad fit, I thought my motherly instinct would kick in then, however it didn't, luckily my mum was with me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2011)

malibu said:


> Completely understand hun *hugs* however I also think that when faced in such a horrible thing, other instincts would kick in such as fear & shock, believe me I know, I nearly lost my 3 year old because I was too shocked too do anything when she was having a bad fit, I thought my motherly instinct would kick in then, however it didn't, luckily my mum was with me.


i know different people react in different ways , i remember my youngest being about 5 / 6 at the time she were playing with one of those plastic little toys that you get out those little surprise eggs throwing it up in the air and catching it tho being distracted by her grandad , last time she threw it up in the air it landed in her mouth and she swollowed it the wrong way , went red , then blue took a while but i managed to dislodge it just before paramedics arrived , the feeling of terror when i realised what had happened was unbelievable , and the thought she could have died was worse. the feeling of relief when it came flying out her mouth was indescribable. things like that are every parents nightmare. you know and i cringe when i`ve occasionally done my sisters a favour of collecting their youngest from school if i am passing by and i see kids coming out running around with lollies in their mouths:frown2:


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

diablo said:


> i know i`d have to try , after sitting with people that lost their daughter in a house fire and god forbid if it were my own children like anyone , maternal instinct would absolutely kick in , i`d die for my kids i don`t know anyone that wouldn`t.


There is no worse pain and grief in life than losing a child - it doesn't matter whether that child is 2 months or 25 years - and when you've witnessed someone go through such a tragedy (which I have far too many times - from road accidents to murder to dropping down dead with no warning) - it's not a pain I would wish on my worst enemy.

I am not saying I would be happy about the risk of losing my pets in such a horrendous way, I would be devastated - and I have lost a pet in a bad and unexpected accident and the pain was terrible and yes - 30 years on I still remember it - but ask any parent who has lost a child - and there is simply no comparison - I simply couldn't do that to another human being if I was in a position to help


----------



## Cinnebar (Nov 8, 2011)

I have lost a son and there is no pain in the world to compare with it. I would not wish that on my worst enemy :frown2:

Slightly different scenario - I cannot remember the name of a film that I saw many years ago but I think it was Ingrid Bergman. A Jewish Holocaust type thing. She was escorted along with her 2 children to a train taking kids to a death camp and was told she could save 1 of her children - but she had to say which one. If she didn't name one of them, then they would both die !!!
How could any mother cope with something like that. I suppose this would even have similar effect to those of you who would save pets first - how would you decide which pet to save?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

swarthy said:


> There is no worse pain and grief in life than losing a child - it doesn't matter whether that child is 2 months or 25 years - and when you've witnessed someone go through such a tragedy (which I have far too many times - from road accidents to murder to dropping down dead with no warning) - it's not a pain I would wish on my worst enemy.
> 
> I am not saying I would be happy about the risk of losing my pets in such a horrendous way, I would be devastated - and I have lost a pet in a bad and unexpected accident and the pain was terrible and yes - 30 years on I still remember it - but ask any parent who has lost a child - and there is simply no comparison - I simply couldn't do that to another human being if I was in a position to help


understand completely , seeing the grief explode from sarah`s parents was indescribable , years later they still havent gotton over it and they never will , i don`t think they`ll ever be the same people again
of course you`d like to think you could save as many as you can animal or human , tho in my heart i feel human life in my eyes must come before all others after seeing that kind of grief tear people apart and i don`t mean in the way rip a family apart , i mean in the sense it tears someone apart so much they can`t be put back together again , unfortunately theres no sticking plaster than can fix that


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

diablo said:


> understand completely , seeing the grief explode from sarah`s parents was indescribable , years later they still havent gotton over it and they never will , i don`t think they`ll ever be the same people again
> of course you`d like to think you could save as many as you can animal or human , tho in my heart i feel human life in my eyes must come before all others after seeing that kind of grief tear people apart and i don`t mean in the way rip a family apart , i mean in the sense it tears someone apart so much they can`t be put back together again , unfortunately theres no sticking plaster than can fix that


Very many people never recover from the death of a child - if they have other children - they have to go on - but losing a child is about as un-natural as it gets in life - because in life we go through certain programming - our parents will usually die before us - our pets are only on loan to us for a short time - but children should always outlive their parents.

A little part of me crumbles every time I face the thought of losing one of my beloved dogs - but that's nothing compared to the fear you face if your child is believed to be in danger - that's not crumbling - that's having an indescribable feeling of having your guts ripped out and a pain that no-one should ever have to go through - there but for the grace of god............


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

swarthy said:


> Very many people never recover from the death of a child - if they have other children - they have to go on - but losing a child is about as un-natural as it gets in life - because in life we go through certain programming - our parents will usually die before us - our pets are only on loan to us for a short time - but children should always outlive their parents.
> 
> A little part of me crumbles every time I face the thought of losing one of my beloved dogs - but that's nothing compared to the fear you face if your child is believed to be in danger - that's not crumbling - that's having an indescribable feeling of having your guts ripped out and a pain that no-one should ever have to go through - there but for the grace of god............


sarah left behind her two year old daughter who were thank god was holidaying with her parents at the time. their grief was and still is terrible , the only thing i honestly think kept them going was their little grandaughter , knowing she really had no one else in this world to care for her so afraid for many months after they just went into autopilot , knowing and seeing what they went and still go through on an everyday basis i couldnt put another person through that , not for anything in this world , never.


----------



## Cinnebar (Nov 8, 2011)

I was told that life would never be 'normal' again but that I had to find a new 'normal' and it's true. You never truly recover but find ways to live with it. I laugh and joke about my son because I cannot spend my life crying. Life goes on, it has to !!


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Marley boy said:


> Well you don't hear in news very often man saves cat from burning house and leaves child to die do ya? I'm quite confident when I say most people would save the child. If I'm wrong then bloody hell I'm going to be busy saving all the kids left to burn while the good Samaritan is rescuing the cat! Lol


LOL and try explaining to social services or well even the rest of society the reasons and see how it go's down. I doubt you would be able to show your face ever again without it been attacked by the childs family or friends, outraged citizens etc etc.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Waterlily said:


> LOL and try explaining to social services or well even the rest of society the reasons and see how it go's down. I doubt you would be able to show your face ever again without it been attacked by the childs family or friends, outraged citizens etc etc.


I was just thinking along similar lines, if it was witnessed or could be proved that someone had made a choice and saved an animal when there was a child/human in a burning building, would there be consequences? because i would go as far as to say there should be.


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

I don't see how ANYONE could judge what a person chooses to save. Unless the person started the fire, I don't see why anyone should be punished for saving their pet over someone elses child.

I guess people are very different. I feel absolutely nothing towards human deaths, which makes my decision an easy one.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

happysaz133 said:


> I don't see how ANYONE could judge what a person chooses to save. Unless the person started the fire, I don't see why anyone should be punished for saving their pet over someone elses child.
> 
> I guess people are very different. I feel absolutely nothing towards human deaths, which makes my decision an easy one.


I agree with nobody should judge. No answer is wrong and people have to accept that not everybody will choose what they choose.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

malibu said:


> I agree with nobody should judge, and to actually make people try and feel guilty for the choice they make is wrong IMO. No answer is right and people have to accept that not everybody will choose what they choose.


I also agree everyone has the right to their choice and shouldnt feel guilty and i for one arnt saying they havnt or saying they should feel guilty, ime just struggling to understand, just how some are maybe struggling to understand how i could let an animal die for a child.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> I also agree everyone has the right to their choice and shouldnt feel guilty and i for one arnt saying they havnt or saying they should feel guilty, ime just struggling to understand, just how some are maybe struggling to understand how i could let an animal die for a child.


Totally understand  each to their own, and I for one am happy that there is both people who would rescue the child and rescue the pet. I've not stated who I would save first if I was alone, as after what happened with my little girl, I think shock would set in with me and I wouldn't be able to move, just panic :-(
I edited my last post as it came out wong and I didn't want people on here thinking I'm saying they are trying to make others feel guilty which I wasn't. x


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Normal people would get help and try to save both. Which one you did first depends on circumstances. 
Life is life. 
BTW what`s the neighbour doing? Watching?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

happysaz133 said:


> I don't see how ANYONE could judge what a person chooses to save. Unless the person started the fire, I don't see why anyone should be punished for saving their pet over someone elses child.
> 
> I guess people are very different. I feel absolutely nothing towards human deaths, which makes my decision an easy one.


TBH im quite shocked at this post!

Realistically in a situation like this the emergency services would be called immediately..therefore i would save the kids lives and leave the animals until there was someone who could actually access the fire with proper equipment then not only would the life of the child be saved but the child wouldnt have to loose a mother!


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Cinnebar said:


> I have lost a son and there is no pain in the world to compare with it. I would not wish that on my worst enemy :frown2:
> 
> Slightly different scenario - I cannot remember the name of a film that I saw many years ago but I think it was Ingrid Bergman. A Jewish Holocaust type thing. She was escorted along with her 2 children to a train taking kids to a death camp and was told she could save 1 of her children - but she had to say which one. If she didn't name one of them, then they would both die !!!
> How could any mother cope with something like that. I suppose this would even have similar effect to those of you who would save pets first - how would you decide which pet to save?


Wasn't that the film Sophie's Choice with Meryl Streep? Never watched it as I know it would traumatize me!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Normal people would get help and try to save both. Which one you did first depends on circumstances.
> Life is life.
> BTW what`s the neighbour doing? Watching?





harley bear said:


> TBH im quite shocked at this post!
> 
> Realistically in a situation like this the emergency services would be called immediately..therefore i would save the kids lives and leave the animals until there was someone who could actually access the fire with proper equipment then not only would the life of the child be saved but the child wouldnt have to loose a mother!


TBH I think you are both losing the plot 

This wasn't meant to be a real-life situation, but a theoretical scenario designed to make people examine their values.

If it *were* a real life situation, it would be very unlikely that there would be just one person to save everyone - not impossible, just very improbable.

If it *were* a real life situation, the chances are that if you did not have time to save both your animals and the child, then the fire would be too well established and animals and child would all already be dead from smoke inhalation.

If it *were* a real life situation, one of the main questions would be why is the baby in the house on its own anyway - the answer to which would invalidate many of the arguments put forward about losing a child being the worst things that could happen to anyone. It might be for loving caring parents, but probably wouldn't be for parents who leave a child on its own.

But we are not talking about a real life situation, just a scenario designed to make people examine how they feel.

And as such, there are no right or wrong answers, whether you are shocked at the fact that people have different values to yourself or not. It does not mean that their values are wrong and that yours are right - or vice versa. It just means they are different.


----------



## ebonymagic (Jun 18, 2010)

I have thought about the scenario again.

If someone elses house was on fire, the first thing I would do is ring the fire brigade. As it would be someone elses fire I would be a lot calmer than when I was in my situation. I actually rang my OH first.

If it was your own house I defy anybody not to speak too quick to the operator and also resist the urge to go round in circles not knowing what to do next. 

My next move would be to assess how bad the fire is, if I could get to any victims without risk to my own health then I would rescue what/who I could.

I don't know what a person would do if they had pets as kids, I suppose it would depend on what the situation was.

Judgement of other people is wrong. Each decision is a personal one and whatever happens each person has to live with it.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

On a practical level if there was a house fire most animals natural survival instincts would kick in and they would find a way out if exits were made available, like smashing windows etc whereas a child would be unlikely to be able to save themselves out of fear.

It is exactly the reason i stopped crating Oscar because someone on here (think it was DT) pointed out that he would have been stuck if there was a fire, as it is now i would simply have to kick my back doors in and he could get out on his own. 

How often do you hear about owners going in to water or out on ice to "save" their dogs only for the owner to drown and the dog to get themselves out of the water, again unlikely a child would be able to do that.


Interesting question. If you were in a burning building and the emergency services turned up would you want them to save your pets before they saved you ? 

For me it's not about wether i love animals or children more it's about the fact that i could never inflict the level of pain on another human being that losing a child would do. 

For those that say they love their pets more than or equal to their love for a child, i don't doubt that is how you feel but it must make people realise there is a difference when not a single parent would save a pet over a child. I don't believe those parents love their pets any less than those without children i just think having children brings a greater understanding of the pain that would cause. (hope that makes sense)


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

ebonymagic said:


> I have thought about the scenario again..


TBH I have too....for hours....and hours....wish i'd never bloody looked at the thread in the first place this sort of thing plays on my mind...how many times do people on here say if you don't like a thread don't look....mentally slapping myself now.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> TBH I think you are both losing the plot
> 
> This wasn't meant to be a real-life situation, but a theoretical scenario designed to make people examine their values.


No it wasn`t! It was a daft question!  designed to get people worked up. 
I`m really good on plots btw.


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

I am quite shocked i shouldn't be that there a few on this thread so ARROGANT that they think their view to save the child is Supreme get real, this is not a thread to attack those that don't share your egotistical view. When i take on a 'pet' i am prepared to give everything for them my life if a soul exists then that too. Too many take on animals believing they are second best to humans and thats how so many are in need of help


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

raggie doll said:


> I am quite shocked i shouldn't be that there a few on this thread so ARROGANT that they think their view to save the child is Supreme get real, this is not a thread to attack those that don't share your egotistical view. When i take on a 'pet' i am prepared to give everything for them my life if a soul exists then that too. Too many take on animals believing they are second best to humans and thats how so many are in need of help


If this applies to me then I disagree strongly that my view is egotistical or arrogant. It is simply MY view. I haven't attacked anyone for their views but i won't pretend that i can really understand something that i cannot.

There is also a suggestion in your post that somehow people who place children above their pets somehow don't love their pets as much as you do which is simply not the case because some of the strongest animal lovers i have ever known reside on this site and they would still place their children above their animals.

Have you considered that maybe there is a different (note the word different NOT superior) level of love that you have not accesed yet ?


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

RAINYBOW said:


> If this applies to me then I disagree strongly that my view is egotistical or arrogant. It is simply MY view. I haven't attacked anyone for their views but i won't pretend that i can really understand something that i cannot.
> 
> There is also a suggestion in your post that somehow people who place children above their pets somehow don't love their pets as much as you do which is simply not the case because some of the strongest animal lovers i have ever known reside on this site and they would still place their children above their animals.
> 
> Have you considered that maybe there is a different (note the word different NOT superior) level of love that you have not accesed yet ?


no. 1 it was not directed at yourself but my point was that some people don't have pets but babies fur babies but love them to the same event you love your child. I think Malibu was right in that there is no right or wrong answer but no two things can be completely equal every human will feel and express emotions differently. I wouldn't have children because of scenarios just like this i love mine cats too much and could never sacrifice them but thats my opinion i can't expect people to agree with it. the arrogance i spoke of was the idea that because some would save the baby rather than the animal of vice versa that they are wrong. This is a moral dilemma not a physical thing or entity, this is the exact reason there is no 'good Samaritan Law' we can't force people to do things based on one moral idea or belief


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Interesting question. If you were in a burning building and the emergency services turned up would you want them to save your pets before they saved you ?


No contest - I would make sure I passed my animals out through the window before ever I climbed out! 



RAINYBOW said:


> For me it's not about wether i love animals or children more it's about the fact that i could never inflict the level of pain on another human being that losing a child would do.
> 
> For those that say they love their pets more than or equal to their love for a child, i don't doubt that is how you feel but it must make people realise there is a difference when not a single parent would save a pet over a child. I don't believe those parents love their pets any less than those without children i just think having children brings a greater understanding of the pain that would cause. (hope that makes sense)


As I said earlier to Claire, this is the one part I can't argue about as I have never had children. At the moment, it just seems so unlikely that I would choose the pain of knowing I left my animals to die - animals who would be trusting me to look after them and keep them safe -over saving someone else's pain. It also seems very altruistic of the people who have said that they would save someone else's child over their own pet to spare someone else pain, and I wonder if, when push came to shove, they really would do as they say. I don't mean to insinuate that they are fooling themselves, or lying, or anything like that. What I mean is that I wonder whether what they think would happen would really happen in the heat of the moment, or would the instinct to protect their own kick in above all else?

However, as I also said to Claire, I can't state categorically that I wouldn't change my mind if ever I had had children because that is an unknown - and the fact that no-one with children has come on here yet and said that they would save their animals over a strange child's life_ has _sown a seed of doubt.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

raggie doll said:


> no. 1 it was not directed at yourself but my point was that some people don't have pets but babies fur babies but love them to the same event you love your child. I think Malibu was right in that there is no right or wrong answer but no two things can be completely equal every human will feel and express emotions differently. I wouldn't have children because of scenarios just like this i love mine cats too much and could never sacrifice them but thats my opinion i can't expect people to agree with it. the arrogance i spoke of was the idea that because some would save the baby rather than the animal of vice versa that they are wrong. This is a moral dilemma not a physical thing or entity, this is the exact reason there is no 'good Samaritan Law' we can't force people to do things based on one moral idea or belief


apologies 

It is always an interesting debate this one and there is a lot to be gained in understanding from both sides of the coin 

You are right though because since having children i would hesitate to endanger my own life for another adult because of the impact that would have on my family. My viewpoint isn't about me it's about the suffering my actions would cause to others and its certainly not as black and white as it can appear.


----------



## sarelis (Aug 29, 2011)

Wouldn't be absolutely sure unless I was actually in that situation, but I think I would lean toward saving my animals first. I took them on, they are my responsibility & rely on me for everything, how could I leave them to burn alive? Also I generally prefer animals to people. Sorry if anyone is offended by that, but that is how I feel.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No contest - I would make sure I passed my animals out through the window before ever I climbed out!
> 
> As I said earlier to Claire, this is the one part I can't argue about as I have never had children. At the moment, it just seems so unlikely that I would choose the pain of knowing I left my animals to die - animals who would be trusting me to look after them and keep them safe -over saving someone else's pain. It also seems very altruistic of the people who have said that they would save someone else's child over their own pet to spare someone else pain, and I wonder if, when push came to shove, they really would do as they say. I don't mean to insinuate that they are fooling themselves, or lying, or anything like that. What I mean is that I wonder whether what they think would happen would really happen in the heat of the moment, or would the instinct to protect their own would kick in above all else?
> 
> However, as I also said to Claire, I can't state categorically that I wouldn't change my mind if ever I had had children because that is an unknown - and the fact that no-one with children has come on here yet and said that they would save their animals over a strange child's life_ has _sown a seed of doubt.


There is no question i would save someone elses child over Oscar, given what i do for a living though thats hardly a suprise


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

RAINYBOW said:


> apologies
> 
> It is always an interesting debate this one and there is a lot to be gained in understanding from both sides of the coin
> 
> You are right though because since having children i would hesitate to endanger my own life for another adult because of the impact that would have on my family. My viewpoint isn't about me it's about the suffering my actions would cause to others and its certainly not as black and white as it can appear.


yes exactly its so difficult to gage what you would do as well i would be going in for my pet but i am also one of these people who suffer guilt immensely and would do everything in my power to save anyone as well as i would be devastated to leave someone to die especially in such a way. I always remember when i was 6 we had a nasty fire and we all got out but my mum being not so much an animal lover wouldn't go in for the cats and my dad was out so my next door neighbour ran into a burning kitchen and went and got my cats i never forgot that cause it was selfless. I think if we as humans i mean were as advanced as we like to believe we wouldn't let anyone/any animal die but i understand that you would go in for your child more than any=thing because if it was my fur babies i would and god help anyone that tried to stop me


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

sarelis said:


> Wouldn't be absolutely sure unless I was actually in that situation, but I think I would lean toward saving my animals first. I took them on, they are my responsibility & rely on me for everything, how could I leave them to burn alive? Also I generally prefer animals to people. Sorry if anyone is offended by that, but that is how I feel.


The times i have said, dogs are better than some humans and i will always stand by that, but ime thinking baby so its a whole different way of thinking no way on earth could i ever leave my child or anyone elses child burn in a fire while i rescued a pet and as ive said before everyone is entitled to their opinion and we all think in different ways, but i fail to understand just how anyone could possible do it ,let alone live the rest of their lives knowing they had let a human baby die in a fire.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

sarelis said:


> Also I generally prefer animals to people. Sorry if anyone is offended by that, but that is how I feel.


i prefer animals to people but theres no contest , human life to me is more valuable and comes over and above the life of an animal.
i couldnt put someone through the grief of loosing their child after witnessing what that does to someone , it`s a very different grief than that of loosing a pet.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

malibu said:


> I'm just happy that there is both people in the world who would save the baby and people who would save the pet


Me too, there's no right or wrong answer, just differing opinions, babies are helpless, but so are animals & both have the right not to die in a burning building


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

again you can't say that everyone processes emotions differently some people would suffer just as much loosing their 'pet'


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

sarelis said:


> how could I leave them to burn alive?


yeah the same can be said for how can you let a child burn alive. Just my view of your opinion  lol


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

skyblue said:


> a baby could grow older and cure cancer,aids and many other diseases,it could grow to be the person to end all wars,it could invent the craft that makes space travel a reality..the list is endless....what-ever i think of my dogs i have to think of the bigger picture


Or it could be little Adolf here...










The original question is the type beloved by lawyers to put people on the spot...there is no one answer as the circumstances would vary in every case.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

raggie doll said:


> again you can't say that everyone processes emotions differently some people would suffer just as much loosing their 'pet'


i find that really hard to understand , until you see that outpouring of grief [in a situation where a parent looses a child] the two just don`t compare.
i lost one of my own pets recently , what i am going through is nothing compared to the torture the people i know went and go through on an everyday basis


----------



## natty01 (Sep 4, 2011)

i hope to god noone ever finds there self in this situation. but i have a feeling even those people who are definatly sure they would save there pet first may actually be surprrised that if they truly were in this situation they wouldnt even think , it wouldnt be a choice to be made i think our human instinct would cause us to save a baby first , nothing to do with loving our pets more or less or loving or not loving children at all . i think it would be pure instinct that would make a human save a human baby first.

of course i dont have any proof for this its simply a gut instinct. its like the sound of a baby crying triggering something in a person . when i was pregnant any baby crying triggered an explosion of milk , really great when out shopping . not.


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

diablo said:


> i find that really hard to understand , until you see that outpouring of grief [in a situation where a parent looses a child] the two just don`t compare.
> i lost one of my own pets recently , what i am going through is nothing compared to the torture the people i know went and go through on an everyday basis


but thats you i have witnessed it and it is horrible yes but not all people are the same as you my best friend died in a horrible way and her mother was in pies and her sister and for years it was just horrible to watch, but again this is all how you are wired with emotions my aunt had kids and cats and when her cat died she was destroyed absolutely destroyed she treated it as her child it was horrible to watch. TBH for me its anyone/pets or humans anyone helpless who can't defend themselves or fend for themselves needs saving equally. All I'm saying is that we can't all react the same and to be fair emotions are a chemical response so it really depends on the chemical structure of your brain as well


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

raggie doll said:


> but thats you i have witnessed it and it is horrible yes but not all people are the same as you my best friend died in a horrible way and her mother was in pies and her sister and for years it was just horrible to watch, but again this is all how you are wired with emotions my aunt had kids and cats and when her cat died she was destroyed absolutely destroyed she treated it as her child it was horrible to watch. TBH for me its anyone/pets or humans anyone helpless who can't defend themselves or fend for themselves needs saving equally. All I'm saying is that we can't all react the same and to be fair emotions are a chemical response so it really depends on the chemical structure of your brain as well


i`d really like to think if this scenario happened here , my children would be saved before my animals , if they werent and the animals came out first and my children left to die i`d never forgive that person i actually don`t think i could.
i agree to an extent with what your saying , people react differently in situations , all i am saying here as a mother i completely understand the maternal need to preserve human life above an animals , its just the way mums operate and only another mother could understand that need.
in this situation of course i`d be devestated for the loss of my animals but that just wouldnt compare to loosing one of my children , if i ever did i doubt i could go on with my own life.


----------



## natty01 (Sep 4, 2011)

just been reading a similar thread elsewhere . and someone posted an alternative question.

if your dog was mauling someone elses child would you kill your dog to save their child. ?


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

natty01 said:


> just been reading a similar thread elsewhere . and someone posted an alternative question.
> 
> if your dog was mauling someone elses child would you kill your dog to save their child. ?


In a flash.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

raggie doll said:


> I am quite shocked i shouldn't be that there a few on this thread so ARROGANT that they think their view to save the child is Supreme get real, this is not a thread to attack those that don't share your egotistical view. When i take on a 'pet' i am prepared to give everything for them my life if a soul exists then that too. Too many take on animals believing they are second best to humans and thats how so many are in need of help


When you give birth to a child, that child is your whole life, your whole existance, not only would you dye trying to save your childs life you would under any circumatances die to keep them safe! 
Animals ARE second best to my kids no doubt what so ever about it! If my house was to burst into flames and i couldnt get downstairs i would be getting my kids out the windown upstairs and making sure they were safe! I would think about what animals were left inside once and only once ALL my babies were safe and my oh was safe.



RAINYBOW said:


> If this applies to me then I disagree strongly that my view is egotistical or arrogant. It is simply MY view. I haven't attacked anyone for their views but i won't pretend that i can really understand something that i cannot.
> 
> There is also a suggestion in your post that somehow people who place children above their pets somehow don't love their pets as much as you do which is simply not the case because some of the strongest animal lovers i have ever known reside on this site and they would still place their children above their animals.
> 
> Have you considered that maybe there is a different (note the word different NOT superior) level of love that you have not accesed yet ?


 
Well said


raggie doll said:


> no. 1 it was not directed at yourself but my point was that some people don't have pets but babies fur babies but love them to the same event you love your child. I think Malibu was right in that there is no right or wrong answer but no two things can be completely equal every human will feel and express emotions differently. I wouldn't have children because of scenarios just like this i love mine cats too much and could never sacrifice them but thats my opinion i can't expect people to agree with it. the arrogance i spoke of was the idea that because some would save the baby rather than the animal of vice versa that they are wrong. This is a moral dilemma not a physical thing or entity, this is the exact reason there is no 'good Samaritan Law' we can't force people to do things based on one moral idea or belief


Well im speachless!



natty01 said:


> just been reading a similar thread elsewhere . and someone posted an alternative question.
> 
> if your dog was mauling someone elses child would you kill your dog to save their child. ?


If my dog mauled a child i would be the first to do ANYTHING to stop the dog mauling the child! And if the dog was still alive after the event it would be straight down the vets to be pts! There would be no way on gods earth i would have any anumal in my house that had mauled a child or anyone else for that matter!


----------



## GillyR (Nov 2, 2009)

poohdog said:


> Or it could be little Adolf here...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


pmsl .... little adolf looks like butter wouldn't melt .... you know he was a veggie, and a animal lover....but thought nothing of killing millions


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

natty01 said:


> just been reading a similar thread elsewhere . and someone posted an alternative question.
> 
> if your dog was mauling someone elses child would you kill your dog to save their child. ?


yes i would.

Like i said before i am watching 2 parents lose their beloved daughter to cancer at the moment and i have never seen pain like that in anyone.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

GillyR said:


> pmsl .... little adolf looks like butter wouldn't melt .... you know he was a veggie, and a animal lover....but thought nothing of killing millions


I only just heard that the other day that he loved animals lol, unbelievable aye how someone with so much "compassion" could be such a monster.


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

Waterlily said:


> I only just heard that the other day that he loved animals lol, unbelievable aye how someone with so much "compassion" could be such a monster.


He obviously loved Animals More than people.

Going back to the orginal Thread question To save a baby or animal I don't think there is an answer unless you were actually in that position I guess it hard to say how you would react.

obviously the ideal solution would be to save both.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

raggie doll said:


> again you can't say that everyone processes emotions differently some people would suffer just as much loosing their 'pet'


We expect to loose our pets, some small animals live just a few years, if we are very lucky our cats and dogs give us 20 years - no one expects their children to die before them.
We are in some way prepared to loose our pet we know we only have them for a short time when they come into our lives - we're never prepared for our children to leave us.
The grief my parents went through when my sister died is incomparable to the grief they felt when they lost their cat.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I can understand if it was your own child, but I would not put some else's child before my dog. He is mine I choose to have him, so he is my responsibility, to look after him and keep him safe from harm.

I say again "I would not put anyone before my dog".


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Fleur said:


> We expect to loose our pets, some small animals live just a few years, if we are very lucky our cats and dogs give us 20 years - no one expects their children to die before them.
> We are in some way prepared to loose our pet we know we only have them for a short time when they come into our lives - we're never prepared for our children to leave us.
> The grief my parents went through when my sister died is incomparable to the grief they felt when they lost their cat.


Absolutely - I was devastated when I lost my dad last year - but in reality, I was lucky to have him as long as I did - many are not so fortunate - there are certain things almost 'programmed' into us from a young age - parents die before their children, pets are on loan to us for such a relatively short time - but NO-ONE expects people to die young and I genuinely don't want to even think about the grief - because even the pain of thinking about it is inconcievable


----------



## WeimyLady (Jan 3, 2010)

For me it is a no brainer - the child every time. 

There is absolutely zero comparison between a dog and a child as far as I am concerned. 

People who would save the life of an animal over a human child obviously don't have children.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

natty01 said:


> just been reading a similar thread elsewhere . And someone posted an alternative question.
> 
> If your dog was mauling someone elses child would you kill your dog to save their child. ?


yes!!!!!!!


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2011)

RAINYBOW said:


> Interesting question. If you were in a burning building and the emergency services turned up would you want them to save your pets before they saved you ?


Of course I would!!! I am so stubborn I'd refuse assistance until my dogs were safe on the ground and I'd be shouting at the firemen to keep them on a tight lead and noses off the floor 



Spellweaver said:


> It also seems very altruistic of the people who have said that they would save someone else's child over their own pet to spare someone else pain, and I wonder if, when push came to shove, they really would do as they say. I don't mean to insinuate that they are fooling themselves, or lying, or anything like that. What I mean is that I wonder whether what they think would happen would really happen in the heat of the moment, or would the instinct to protect their own kick in above all else?


I do actually think many would think twice about leaving their own kids without a mother/father or putting their lives at risk for another

And thats where it goes back to "it should be an offence to put a pet before a child" or allow a child to die. No one should be punished for not sacricing themselves. even the police wouldnt run into a burning building for elfin safety reasons!


----------



## ebonymagic (Jun 18, 2010)

My dog bit my child when he was cruising the furniture. The first thing I did was make sure my boy was ok then I frightened my dog so much that he wee'd.

Then I got in touch with an RSPCA inspector friend to rehome the dog, with the proviso that he went to a home with NO kids.

If my dog mauled someone elses child I would do everything in my power to help the child. I don't know whether I would have him destroyed, but I would make damn sure he never had the opportunity to do it again.

I always thought that firemen were trained to save human lives first, if they are aware of any pets they will rescue them if it doesn't endanger their lives. 

I think that anyone would have to be devoid of emotion if they could just stand by and watch without trying to rescue humans or animals.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

ebonymagic said:


> My dog bit my child when he was cruising the furniture. The first thing I did was make sure my boy was ok then I frightened my dog so much that he wee'd.
> 
> Then I got in touch with an RSPCA inspector friend to rehome the dog, with the proviso that he went to a home with NO kids.
> 
> ...


There is no way a fireman would rescue someones animals first no matter how much the person protested.


----------



## ebonymagic (Jun 18, 2010)

I thought that is what I wrote. Humans first, then animals IF safe to do so


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

ebonymagic said:


> I thought that is what I wrote. Humans first, then animals IF safe to do so


sorry yes i was agreeing with you just didnt make that clear  Typing with one eye on the telly


----------



## ebonymagic (Jun 18, 2010)

Wot are you like :biggrin::thumbup1:


----------



## Bellaboo1 (Aug 10, 2011)

raggie doll said:


> i don't have kids and have no intention of having them but i don't believe that humans are higher in the hierarchy an animal still needs saving no matter what i don't share your opinion that a child is more deserving of life than an animal again its just my opinion


Mmmm don't see many dogs walking humans around on leads lol :biggrin:


----------



## raggie doll (Sep 16, 2011)

Bellaboo1 said:


> Mmmm don't see many dogs walking humans around on leads lol :biggrin:


considering what many humans are capable of it wouldn't be such a bad idea with a muzzle too


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> There is no way a fireman would rescue someones animals first no matter how much the person protested.


That's me a gonner then then cos there's no way a fireman would get me out of the house until I passed him all my animals


----------



## thedogsmother (Aug 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> That's me a gonner the then cos there's no way a fireman would get me out of the house until I passed him all my animals


I once woke up to find myself being carried out of the house on a stretcher by firemen, I was trying to tell them that they had to get the animals out first but they wouldnt listen and just kept telling me it was ok. I ended up punching one of them but they fastended my arms down. it wasnt till about an hour later when I calmed down that I realised Id had a seizure and the house wasnt on fire, I really regret punching that fireman who was in actual fact a paramedic


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> That's me a gonner then then cos there's no way a fireman would get me out of the house until I passed him all my animals


lol...they would have to man handle you out , you would be thrown over a shoulder, your protests would go ignored....then if it was safe to do so...they would return for your animals.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

I honestly can't say what I would do. I pray I never am faced with that situation.


----------

