Who yould you save and why?

@samson1 (738)
Jamaica
March 10, 2012 12:15am CST
As i tourist, I was jogging alone on a a beach, when I noticed that a dog was barking frantcally. On investigation, the dog was barking at anyone for help. This dog held my shorts and guided me to an accident scene whereby a baby was stranded in its baby stroller, motionless. At the same time the dog also collapsed at my feet due to exhaustion. Given the urgency of the situation, and a decision has to be made immedietely in order to save a life. If you only have one choice, which one of these animals would you save (either the dog or the baby), and why?
1 person likes this
11 responses
@kedralynn (980)
• United States
10 Mar 12
I would say that it sounds like the dog wants the baby saved. Thats why he got help. And as heroic and loyal and the dog is, and badly as I'd feel to let him pass after giving his last breath to bring help to the baby, I'd have to go with helping the baby. If it were possible, I'd call for help for both and pray they hang on. Because what if the baby is too injured to survive and I wound up losing both of them?
1 person likes this
@choybel (5042)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
This is a very brilliant answer in my opinion. I agree with her all the way.
• United States
11 Mar 12
Thanks! I am a big dog person so I don't make that decision lightly! I'd love to save them both!
@tessa9 (1085)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
Animals? The baby? That might be a typo. I will definitely save the person who needs the saving first. If someone is more injured than the other then I will help the more injured one more. Helping the less injured can complicate things more. I don't care if it is a baby, a teen, a mother, a father, a guy or a girl... I will save the injured first.
@choybel (5042)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
Like what kedralynn said, it would be better to check the baby's condition first. If you find that the baby is in no danger or if the baby has no more hope left then maybe the dog should be the option to save. Save one than lose both as she said.
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
11 Mar 12
In that case, having checked both situations, I am ok with both your decision, and the rationale behind making your determination.
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
10 Mar 12
I am being the villian here. Suppose the baby is only asleep. Is is not better to help the other animal (smile) than the sleeping child? Suppose the nearest facility to the fateful scene is a veterinary hospital. What would you do then? Suppose you are an animal lover, or a veterinarian. Why should the child be saved when it is the other animal that needs more attention at this time?
@galileo2008 (1168)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
I would say you have to save the baby, and then the dog. The baby is helpless, she cannot save herself, and she does not even know how to swim, but the dog can even if he's tired. The dog caught your attention on purpose...and that is to save the baby...
@jhuddith (222)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
I agree with you.. Perhaps the dog was indeed trying to catch his attention in order to save the baby...
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
11 Mar 12
I think you're correct in saying that the dog tried desparately to get someone's attention on purpose.., in order for any available human being to save the baby. In addition, given the scenario, the baby is in a more helpless position (whatever its health status at that time) than the dog. Perhaps, it would be better to save the infant; for the reasons forwarded above. Good answer.
@Cutie18f (9546)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
OMG! What happened to them? In that situation, I think I will have to do everything to help both. They probably had an accident or something.
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
11 Mar 12
Hi there, how are you. Remember that you have to make a decision to save one of them? Suppose I had enough phone credit to call you and ask for your advice. What would you tell me to do?
• Canada
11 Mar 12
I would definitely save the baby first, not that I don't care for the dog. I'd like to save both if I could but if it is not possible then i'd save the baby as this is wha the dog wanted you to do also and got your attenion to help the baby...
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
11 Mar 12
Mmm, interesting answer. However, let me be the villian here. Suppose it was not viewed as a 'societal norm' that a dog is a man's best friend; and as a result, the evidence of such feat- the wonderful relationship being shared between man and dog- were not been recorded on numerous occasions, (including the heroic exploits that man and dog have experienced together), over time. Without that information at your disposal, would you still seek to save the baby first, because that was what the dog wanted you to do?
@maratus (184)
• Indonesia
10 Mar 12
The baby because baby still have a long life and brighter life..., LOL
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
11 Mar 12
Are you sure that this baby (in the scenario presnted to you) would 'outlive' the dog?
@choybel (5042)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
I have to say that my answer would be exactly as kedralynn's. Although I would just like to point out that I strongly go against calling a baby human an animal.
@jhuddith (222)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
It really fascinates me that I have already heard and read a lot of news in our country wherein the dogs are risking their lives in order to save their master or others. In your case, I would agree with the other myLotters that you save the baby first because the dog was trying to catch your attention in order to save the poor little one. After making sure that the baby is okay, you may now check on the dog. Actually, I'm a dog lover and I don't have a baby yet so you really got me thinking there. But, I would still say you go save the baby first.
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
11 Mar 12
Your comments are noble indeed. As a dog lover, suppose you had decided to save the dog instead of the infant, could you live with the wrath of the society afterwards?
• South Africa
10 Mar 12
I would definitely save the baby.. I mean I cannot even compare the importance of the too.. I would save the baby first.
@chicgale (2982)
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
For me, I will save the baby because that's what the dog wants you to do.
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
10 Mar 12
I get the point, here. However, suppose on investigation, it was a puppy that was found in the baby stroller, motionless. Soon thereafter, the dog collapsed due to exhaustion. If the remaining 'conditions in the scenario remained the same, would your approach to saving one of the two animals (in the original scenario) remain the same as indicated by you?
• Philippines
10 Mar 12
Having a perfect mind in that situation would be great because you will instinctively know what or who to save. The answers given by the early responders are great. However, if we put ourselves in that situation and imagine that we are the one being on the scene, we might have a different response. The situation needs an immediate action. So, one might really be for the baby because life of a person is more important than a dog. Let me phrase it in another way. What if the baby is your own baby and the dog is your dog? Which of them would you save first? Now, it becomes emotionally different. The stakes are high. Your answer would be interesting to know.
@samson1 (738)
• Jamaica
11 Mar 12
Two points of interest have been brought to the fore here. Firstly, what would you do if you are actully place at the scene, (under the stressful circumstances,) and you have limited time to make the appropriate decision? Secondly, how would you react in the sitruation whereby both the infant and dog are yours? Given the situation, perhaps you may choose instinctively what or who to save. Despite that, perhaps, majority of persons would seek to save the infant first. However, suppose you had chosen to save the dog, over the infant.., could you deal with the wrath of the society for making that decision?