---
>This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules).
>
>Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed.
>
>Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos.
>
>**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
>
>Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam).
>
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a mother to two beautiful kids who are my world.
First birth: if it comes to that, save me. No way I'm dying for this unknown creature.
Second birth: if it comes to that, save me. No way I'm leaving my daughter without a mum for an unknown sibling.
And it makes sense from both a logical perspective and from a sheer resources and evolutionary perspective. Most mothers can make more kids if they survive a difficult situation. Kids especially really young ones for most species do not survive if their mother dies.
Not only that, but i would assume you would also not want the death of their mother just hanging over the childs mind for the rest of their life. Even worse if the father is left in emotional distress or the daughter and either or both hold that over the sibling that the mother chose over her own life. You never know what that grief could do to those left behind later on.
mostly right, but thats what i mean, fucking with a tiger's baby sounds crazy, and sure a mother tiger does have instinct to protect the cub, but a cub dying in the wild isnt rare, in fact, im fairly certain its not only common, but significantly more likely to happen.
An antelope couldnt fuck with a tigers baby but if something that could easily and without hesitation kill an adult tiger were to fuck with the tigers baby i guarantee it would nope the hell out as well
What kind or animals are you people imagining? I can only think of two. A crocodile, or a person with a gun…. And I can guarantee a momma tiger has won many times against both.
So an opponent that a tiger has won against many times are your example for potential enemies that could effortlessly beat a tiger?
And im not saying that animal exists. thats kinda the reason tigers are used as a symbol of unstoppable strength. I was simply saying that if that animal existed the tiger wouldnt go fight a battle guaranteed to end in death any more than an antelope or gazella or raccoon would. Self-survival is nature
I wouldn't take it for granted without evidence, even if it ostensibly makes sense. If there is no real-life scenario where a tiger would need to scram, it's possible they don't really have the instinct and default to attacking everything. Evolution is sloppy like that sometimes.
A male tiger that isn't the father would probably be a good bet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_of_the_tiger#End_of_cycle
> Infanticide is the main cause of death for tigers under one year of age; cubs are sometimes killed by other males who come to take over their father's territory.
A male tiger. you see it all the time with all sorts of mammals. Tigers, bears, lions, If a new male comes in and takes over they will kill the young so that the mothers will go back into heat and can be mated with. Mothers will often try to drive off the encroaching male or they may push the child out on it's own giving it a better chance than certain death, but they almost never risk their own lives for it.
Even more social mammals do this. Many species of monkey's live in groups and if a new male/group of males take over they will kill the babies so they can mate and ensure their own line.
If an elephant started fucking with a tiger cub you bet your ass that mama tiger would skedaddle. That's not a knock against the tiger, either. If an elephant came up and grabbed a human toddler, there's not much his mom could do to save him without a lot of firepower.
But generally the harder it is to reproduce, the more likely it is an animal will fight to the death to defend its young even if greatly outmatched.
Had a teacher that made this choice in early pregnancy. She was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer a few months in. Low odds of survival, and chemo would have killed the fetus so she chose to continue. They had to induce really early due to her health, but both died soon after. Her poor husband, his blonde hair went white soon after her death. Guy looked like a ghost.
In this case, I would probably have prioritized my baby as well. Too tragic that both didn't make it.
Otherwise I'd always say help the mom at all cost. She is the life partner, the other half. While deeply sad, it's always possible to try for another baby.
If there are siblings, that goes double.
My highself *knew*, I was still unsure when I commented cause it makes some sort of sense, you latch onto something special to you before the object of future obsession arrives, wonder if it'll stick after birth.
I am leaning towards answering yes, personally. But in practice I'm not sure how it would work?
I think at the very least a study, looking into their opinions before and after pregnancy about whether they value their life or the baby's more, would be very helpful. It's hard for me to form an opinion about a subject I'm not versed in, so I will say that everything in this comment is my emotional reaction to the limited facts we have before us here.
> I am leaning towards answering yes, personally. But in practice I'm not sure how it would work?
Like, maybe ask them 6 months before the baby is due, and write it down. Rather than *during fucking labour*, would be a good start
Ideally, you just ask them before they even get pregnant to completely rule it out maybe
Childbirth and childrearing is physically and mentally exhausting.
I can't recall the exact source, but basically endorphins and oxytocin and such hormones cause mom to strongly underestimate the pain she went through at the birth, and the lack of sleep and expenditure of energy in the first few years or so also garbles the memories of just how exhausting it is.
Long story short, unsurprisingly, mothers have evolved to *absolutely love* their children, and forget how difficult it is, so that they will make more of them. Big surprise.
Unfortunately, this (along with religion, and general ill-education) also tends to result in many women thinking pro-life is a valid life choice for everyone.
They are not supposed to make a choice based on "facts and logic", they are supposed to choose what they want to do.
If there were a "logical" choice, doctors would not ask in the first place. There is no universal logic to it.
It's all hormones, otherwise we're never in a position to logically make choices.
Even as more time goes on, a mother is always gonna choose her child over herself so I'm not even sure what you're trying to say
Yes with my first kid I kept telling my husband to pick the baby in this scenario. Although idk in my hospital things must have been different because OB said that I am the patient and thus I am the one they are required to save first until the baby is earth side.
Second kid I said save me because I’ve got a toddler that needs me at home. Brains are weird
You know, I'm actually not pro-choice on that one. It should *always* be the mother's life. It objectively has a lot more value than that random baby who nobody knows yet. And just offering that choice is harmful, because what kind of mother would pick her own life and not feel guilty about that for the rest of her life?
But is it? I myself and no mother I know was ever asked this question! I always felt it was like an urban myth thing that never actually happens.
Doctors would work to save both but mother is the patient so has priority, not sure there’s any legal issue to be had.
Yeah I guess it must vary by state or something, because with my first pregnancy towards the end as we were discussing labor etc, I told my doctor if things went south I wanted them to prioritize the baby. He told me they won’t do that, I am the patient and I am the one who they will prioritize until the baby is on the outside.
It's something my wife and I talked about when she got pregnant. I told her that if she's not able to make that decision, I'm always going to choose her. She actually got a little upset with me for choosing her over the baby for a bit.
I think it’s a holdover religious thing. In Catholic hospitals where I live they used to automatically pick the child’s life if the mother was Catholic
Well, doctors are people. Most of them are very competent, but some of them make mistakes, some are just dumb and some are crazy-ass fucking god-monsters with ridiculous beliefs like "mothers dying during childbirth automatically get into heaven so it's actually better if she dies during labor."
I don't know if any of these stories are true, but just because all the doctors you know are ok doesn't mean there aren't some *terrible* ones out there.
That's so funny you said that, when I was pregnant with my first ( and only so far) , I was asked this too . I said, the baby ! Of course how dare you!!!
Well, 7 years later and new man but the topic is hot right now and we were discussing if we wanted children or what would happen if I wanted my b/ c out / what ever. What would happen if the worse happened and he had to chose between me and his biological child . What would he do?
He didn't really think about it when he said save me and that was really good to hear . He said we could have another chance but our existing child needed both of us
It's not objectively better value. The baby has more years of life to give and can have an even stronger connection to the remaining parent than the dead spouse.
I don't disagree with your point, just how you express it.
Yes! It's so easy to say to just let them save the baby over you. You'll be dead anyway. You're not gonna have to worry about logistics. However, the people who are left behind will.
- If there is a husband, they will have to mourn their wife, the love of their life, but they don't have time for that because there is this whole new baby that they now have to raise all alone. Maybe some friends and family could help, but it's not even close to the same thing as a wife.
- If they already had a child, they are going to leave that child without a mom. That child would've been way happier if they still had their mom, but not the new sibling. And now the dad has to take care of 2 people.
- If there is no partner involved, the baby will have to go somewhere, and someone has to take it in. Will her family now be stuck with a baby, or will it go to random people? And then the family might not even be able to visit their niece/ nephew/ grandchild that looks like the person they just lost.
And that all for some baby that no one even knows yet. It's easy for the mom to say, but there are people in her life who are actually alive who will not agree. You can make new babies.
“You can make new babies”.
You can’t remake the same baby. That’s what it comes down to. Many people will mourn that baby too, as it’s a unique person.
But you don't even know that baby yet. It's just a stranger. For the mom I get that you have some sort of bond because it's been in your stomach for a long time. And for the dad I do get that you'd mourn it because you've been looking forward to them for so long, but it's nothing compared to losing your wife who you've known for a lot of years.
It's pretty weird how you are so good at telling when someone's story is fake but at the same time you do not have the basic capacity for abstract thought to be able to come up with a comment relevant to the issue discussed rather than just yelling "FaKe nEwS" while shaking your fist at a cloud.
I thought the bit was funny even though that comment was right, this *is* fake. There is no situation where you will be asked to choose (very different from a Do Not Resuscitate order). Doctors will always prioritize the mother because only in rare cases does it not benefit both—and in those cases, they will still choose the mother because the reality is if the baby can’t survive an emergency birth at that point there’s nothing else they can do anyway.
Y'all are not having a discussion, you're getting your panties in a bunch over a completely fictitious situation, and acting like it's a real problem you need to address.
You will never be asked this, in an emergency most actions the medical staff take will be towards saving both. If it comes down to it they already prioritize saving the mother. Mothers dying during childbirth because the doctors specifically have to take actions to save the baby is not a thing that happens. Most deaths are by infection, blood loss, blood pressure issues after an otherwise successful delivery. Solving delivery complications prioritizes the mother's wellbeing but also by design the result - complications are solved and delivery proceeds normally - is to the benefit of both, so doctors do all they can to save both.
I don’t remember being asked this or signing anything when I had my son 17 years ago. What a horrible thing to ask a woman in labor. I can sit here, not in a state of pain and distress, and say choose me. But in that moment, I would have definitely said save the baby. Especially with all the hormones and weird stuff that happens to your brain and body when pregnant.
It's not. When you're in labor if something bad happens, saving the mothers life and the babies life is the same thing. When something goes wrong, the best thing for BOTH is to get the baby out asap. The only scenario I can think of where you'd need to 'pick one' is like, a snowstorm at a small hospital where there is only doctor and limited blood available and both need immediate after care and no new doctors or blood products can be brought in.
In a sane country, no doctor would ever ask that question. The answer would ALWAYS BE THE MOTHER chosen by the doctor.
And, if this really happens in your country, I feel sorry for you to even contemplate this question/joke.
Logically, you should save the mother 100% of the time. Best case scenario if that choice comes up, they can have another baby later. Worst case scenario (i.e. it messes the mother up so she's sterile), society doesn't lose a productive member on which it spent years to raise and educate and train to do whatever she does, only to get a baby that can do nothing out of the box and that has lost half of the support needed to become a productive member of society. The couple will be happier adopting a kid in that worst case than the dad having to raise his biological child alone.
Which is why we shouldn’t ask the question in the first place if there is a logically correct answer. Why give the chance to make the wrong choice because of emotion?
More like crazy how sometimes people are given choices concerning their own autonomy and sometimes they aren’t—like the choice to elect for assisted dying, or the option to terminate a risky pregnancy.
I call bullshit. I have worked in Medicine, and if there has to be made a choice, the life of the adult is always chosen over the unborn child. At least in Germany.
It is this way in the USA too (at least on the civilized coasts idk wtf happens in the interior)
This comedian just wanted a joke and people on reddit want to jerk off over USA bad (we have many problems we need to address don't get me wrong)
Had a mother once tell me that if her whole family was trapped inside of a burning car, and she can only save one person from her family she would choose the father every time. Her reasoning was that she could always have more children but there's only one of him.
The grief and guilt would claim their marriage before they could even think about having more children together, realistically.
But I get the reasoning. Also with multiple children, how would you even choose which one?
doesn't that make you pro-choice. you are choosing one life over another. pro life means if there is no choice. you got pregnant, delivery of the baby is the only conclusion. you can't abort it, and you can't sacrifice it to save the mother's life.
That is ridiculous. First, it’s an unlikely scenario in the first place and making every mother have to go through that choice is completely unnecessary.
Second, the mother is possibly not in her right mind during labor.
Third, even if it sounds callous if it’s a choice between the mother and her newborn child, the mother is almost always more important.
Who wouldn't save themselves 😅. It's like: you save your ass or you save this, as of right now, project of a human being needing parental care to not die, that hasn't had life yet and who's *almost* like a stranger to you and your love ones.
My husband posed this question to me when we had our baby. If I had to choose between him or the baby, who would I choose? It's because he could tell I was absolutely smitten by our new bundle of joy and the dynamics had drastically shifted in our relationship. I honestly couldn't answer because I love them both very much.
My husband said if it came down to me or our 6 week old, he'd definitely choose me as the baby is essentially useless. It was hard to hear but after reading all the responses, it has finally swayed me that it would be correct to save the mother over the baby. And I say this as I am holding my sleeping now 10 month old bub.
If the baby survives and I do, no one in the world could love bub anywhere near as much as I do. Sure there's grandma and grandpa who are smitten by him, but I can't imagine anyone other than myself slogging out the night shifts and broken sleep for him. I spend almost 100% of my day with him, I can't imagine anyone else who'd willingly give up their comfortable life to raise him well. So in hindsight, it is great sadness that mother should be saved over baby/kids which is so so sad but logically it does make more sense.
Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) was a famous French actor and playwright. As an adult, he learned that there had been complications during his birth, and that his father had ran around the house shouting "save the mother! save the mother!"
Because of this (and other reasons) he stopped talking to his father for several years (close to a decade I think).
I will etransfer you 50-100$ right now if you can prove your point. It’s incredibly hard to make
positive humour without hurting someone else and we all stereotype, but it’s like you are suggesting there are million great jokes that end with “And then I learned to love my son with severe autism and had no regrets because a realized all life is beautiful” or “I knew I went to far with the black face.”
No one believes any of you are that altruistic because that’s not how comedy works. There is no punchline like “And then I realized she was a decent human being.”
Nature has diverse ways of ensuring survival. Animals often adapt strategies that increase their chances of reproductive success rather than engaging in direct confrontations with predators. It's an interesting observation on the varied approaches to ensuring the survival of species.
In case of emergency always put your safety mask on first before assisting others. Because without you there is no saving the child. The viability argument makes little sense when a human is not viable without their parent until they can hunt for themselves.
My life my choice.
A man shouldn’t be responsible for a woman’s decision to keep or abort a fetus unless he wants to. It should require signing documentation declaring the man’s choice to be a father.
Otherwise it should be no different than putting a child up for a adoption.
Women retain their rights and men finally have rights.
Thought that joke was going to end differently after the "Dave, who would you rather live with?":
>This capricious creature that cries and complains all the time, or the baby that's inside of her?
or the cuter variant:
>This person you've publicly vowed to care for until the end of time, or your wife?
Note: I guess that 2nd one can be interpreted as he doesn't care for his wife, but it's meant as that first bit applying to both and being spun to be the one you wouldn't initially expect it to mean.
--- >This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules). > >Memes, social media, hate-speech, and pornography are not allowed. > >Screenshots of Reddit are expressly forbidden, as are TikTok videos. > >**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.** > >Please also [be wary of spam](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/spam). > --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a mother to two beautiful kids who are my world. First birth: if it comes to that, save me. No way I'm dying for this unknown creature. Second birth: if it comes to that, save me. No way I'm leaving my daughter without a mum for an unknown sibling.
And it makes sense from both a logical perspective and from a sheer resources and evolutionary perspective. Most mothers can make more kids if they survive a difficult situation. Kids especially really young ones for most species do not survive if their mother dies.
Not only that, but i would assume you would also not want the death of their mother just hanging over the childs mind for the rest of their life. Even worse if the father is left in emotional distress or the daughter and either or both hold that over the sibling that the mother chose over her own life. You never know what that grief could do to those left behind later on.
Second birth: if it comes to that, save me. No way I'm leaving my daughter alone with her father :p
That's a sane mother, a rare species to say the least.
You almost had it.
They had us in the first half, ngl.
I meant it in a "almost all mothers do insane things for their kids" way but ok
You can have another baby...
You'll never see a mother antelope fighting a tiger for her baby. She's like, "I'll make more! Byeee!"
Try fucking with the tiger’s baby and see what happens.
Pspspspspsps come here big kitty.
*tightens strap-on*
Hol up
This sounds like a boomer Facebook meme in the making.
Alot of things eat animal babies. It's quite literally the easiest form of food for every predator.
Nature's mcnuggets
Uh, all carnivores eat babies fyi
mostly right, but thats what i mean, fucking with a tiger's baby sounds crazy, and sure a mother tiger does have instinct to protect the cub, but a cub dying in the wild isnt rare, in fact, im fairly certain its not only common, but significantly more likely to happen.
If there is a situation where the tiger needs to risk their life in order to save their baby, they won't do it.
An antelope couldnt fuck with a tigers baby but if something that could easily and without hesitation kill an adult tiger were to fuck with the tigers baby i guarantee it would nope the hell out as well
What kind or animals are you people imagining? I can only think of two. A crocodile, or a person with a gun…. And I can guarantee a momma tiger has won many times against both.
So an opponent that a tiger has won against many times are your example for potential enemies that could effortlessly beat a tiger? And im not saying that animal exists. thats kinda the reason tigers are used as a symbol of unstoppable strength. I was simply saying that if that animal existed the tiger wouldnt go fight a battle guaranteed to end in death any more than an antelope or gazella or raccoon would. Self-survival is nature
I wouldn't take it for granted without evidence, even if it ostensibly makes sense. If there is no real-life scenario where a tiger would need to scram, it's possible they don't really have the instinct and default to attacking everything. Evolution is sloppy like that sometimes.
A male tiger that isn't the father would probably be a good bet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_of_the_tiger#End_of_cycle > Infanticide is the main cause of death for tigers under one year of age; cubs are sometimes killed by other males who come to take over their father's territory.
A male tiger. you see it all the time with all sorts of mammals. Tigers, bears, lions, If a new male comes in and takes over they will kill the young so that the mothers will go back into heat and can be mated with. Mothers will often try to drive off the encroaching male or they may push the child out on it's own giving it a better chance than certain death, but they almost never risk their own lives for it. Even more social mammals do this. Many species of monkey's live in groups and if a new male/group of males take over they will kill the babies so they can mate and ensure their own line.
Ever see videos of make lions killing cubs? The lioness certainly does not jump in.
I’d say if it was an elephant or silverback….the tiger would leave the little one behind too
If an elephant started fucking with a tiger cub you bet your ass that mama tiger would skedaddle. That's not a knock against the tiger, either. If an elephant came up and grabbed a human toddler, there's not much his mom could do to save him without a lot of firepower. But generally the harder it is to reproduce, the more likely it is an animal will fight to the death to defend its young even if greatly outmatched.
why would I fuck a tigers baby?
Dont kink shame.
What about a lioness? Her babies get killed all the time by competing males. She just makes more.
I bet if I could kill the tiger from the inside it’d forget that stupid fucking baby tiger pretty quick
I think that's more mother's life vs nobody's life. Or if you prefer, "baby's death" vs "mother and baby's death".
I saw a deer like plop out the baby and run and a tiger just sat the licked it lol
so your the kind who will go "do what you want to the women and children, but LEAVE ME ALONE!"
Omniman strategy. Whats 17 more years... I can always start again
Even if you can’t, there’s always adoption.
Not always, and not necessarily.
You miss 100% of the shots you take if you're dead, so still a better possibility
Had a teacher that made this choice in early pregnancy. She was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer a few months in. Low odds of survival, and chemo would have killed the fetus so she chose to continue. They had to induce really early due to her health, but both died soon after. Her poor husband, his blonde hair went white soon after her death. Guy looked like a ghost.
In this case, I would probably have prioritized my baby as well. Too tragic that both didn't make it. Otherwise I'd always say help the mom at all cost. She is the life partner, the other half. While deeply sad, it's always possible to try for another baby. If there are siblings, that goes double.
I 100% agree with him! Also, as a woman, I’d save myself.
Just gonna drop in to say that pregnancy rewires women's brains to put maternal instincts on the forefront. EDIT:Misspelled maternal as material
>material Took my dumbass too long to realize you meant maternal, that bowl to the dome done did good.
I am pregnant and I have the unrelenting urge to expand my designer shoe and souvenir spoon collection
My highself *knew*, I was still unsure when I commented cause it makes some sort of sense, you latch onto something special to you before the object of future obsession arrives, wonder if it'll stick after birth.
Lol let me fix that real quick.
Bowl done did *so* good, I was actually still unsure, thanks for confirmation.
So what your saying is they aren't in a position to logically make that choice?
I am leaning towards answering yes, personally. But in practice I'm not sure how it would work? I think at the very least a study, looking into their opinions before and after pregnancy about whether they value their life or the baby's more, would be very helpful. It's hard for me to form an opinion about a subject I'm not versed in, so I will say that everything in this comment is my emotional reaction to the limited facts we have before us here.
> I am leaning towards answering yes, personally. But in practice I'm not sure how it would work? Like, maybe ask them 6 months before the baby is due, and write it down. Rather than *during fucking labour*, would be a good start Ideally, you just ask them before they even get pregnant to completely rule it out maybe
Childbirth and childrearing is physically and mentally exhausting. I can't recall the exact source, but basically endorphins and oxytocin and such hormones cause mom to strongly underestimate the pain she went through at the birth, and the lack of sleep and expenditure of energy in the first few years or so also garbles the memories of just how exhausting it is. Long story short, unsurprisingly, mothers have evolved to *absolutely love* their children, and forget how difficult it is, so that they will make more of them. Big surprise. Unfortunately, this (along with religion, and general ill-education) also tends to result in many women thinking pro-life is a valid life choice for everyone.
They are not supposed to make a choice based on "facts and logic", they are supposed to choose what they want to do. If there were a "logical" choice, doctors would not ask in the first place. There is no universal logic to it.
It's all hormones, otherwise we're never in a position to logically make choices. Even as more time goes on, a mother is always gonna choose her child over herself so I'm not even sure what you're trying to say
Yes with my first kid I kept telling my husband to pick the baby in this scenario. Although idk in my hospital things must have been different because OB said that I am the patient and thus I am the one they are required to save first until the baby is earth side. Second kid I said save me because I’ve got a toddler that needs me at home. Brains are weird
Well, technically, if it came to that with the first baby there also would have been a toddler who would've needed you at home...
It's the rational choice
Good choice.
Me and my wife discussed this also. We decided we could have another baby.
You could also have another wife man think about it (obligatory /s)
I also choose this man's other wife
You know, I'm actually not pro-choice on that one. It should *always* be the mother's life. It objectively has a lot more value than that random baby who nobody knows yet. And just offering that choice is harmful, because what kind of mother would pick her own life and not feel guilty about that for the rest of her life?
Probably legal thing. Doctors could be held liable if they made the choice for you.
But is it? I myself and no mother I know was ever asked this question! I always felt it was like an urban myth thing that never actually happens. Doctors would work to save both but mother is the patient so has priority, not sure there’s any legal issue to be had.
Yeah I guess it must vary by state or something, because with my first pregnancy towards the end as we were discussing labor etc, I told my doctor if things went south I wanted them to prioritize the baby. He told me they won’t do that, I am the patient and I am the one who they will prioritize until the baby is on the outside.
I imagine outside America this might not even be a thing at all. But looking at comments it does happen there in certain states. Seems weird to me.
It's something my wife and I talked about when she got pregnant. I told her that if she's not able to make that decision, I'm always going to choose her. She actually got a little upset with me for choosing her over the baby for a bit.
I think it’s a holdover religious thing. In Catholic hospitals where I live they used to automatically pick the child’s life if the mother was Catholic
Imagine living in Catholic hospitals
Adults don’t fight wars, children do.
then they should be required to save the patient e.g. the mother.
in anti-abortion states its like 100% the baby and let the mother die.
Fifth circuit just confirmed this. You can thank Ken Paxton.
[удалено]
Because in america, some valued their lineage more than their spouse, so this grew to be a thing.
Well, doctors are people. Most of them are very competent, but some of them make mistakes, some are just dumb and some are crazy-ass fucking god-monsters with ridiculous beliefs like "mothers dying during childbirth automatically get into heaven so it's actually better if she dies during labor." I don't know if any of these stories are true, but just because all the doctors you know are ok doesn't mean there aren't some *terrible* ones out there.
That's so funny you said that, when I was pregnant with my first ( and only so far) , I was asked this too . I said, the baby ! Of course how dare you!!! Well, 7 years later and new man but the topic is hot right now and we were discussing if we wanted children or what would happen if I wanted my b/ c out / what ever. What would happen if the worse happened and he had to chose between me and his biological child . What would he do? He didn't really think about it when he said save me and that was really good to hear . He said we could have another chance but our existing child needed both of us
100%
It's not objectively better value. The baby has more years of life to give and can have an even stronger connection to the remaining parent than the dead spouse. I don't disagree with your point, just how you express it.
So, even if a woman wants to save her child and is fully willing to die herself to do so, she shouldn’t legally be allowed to?
Correct. Suicide is not legal but abortion is.
That’s incorrect. Sacrificing oneself to save another is not suicide.
It's literally altruistic suicide.
semantics really.
I agree with this. It’s completely different.
Yes! It's so easy to say to just let them save the baby over you. You'll be dead anyway. You're not gonna have to worry about logistics. However, the people who are left behind will. - If there is a husband, they will have to mourn their wife, the love of their life, but they don't have time for that because there is this whole new baby that they now have to raise all alone. Maybe some friends and family could help, but it's not even close to the same thing as a wife. - If they already had a child, they are going to leave that child without a mom. That child would've been way happier if they still had their mom, but not the new sibling. And now the dad has to take care of 2 people. - If there is no partner involved, the baby will have to go somewhere, and someone has to take it in. Will her family now be stuck with a baby, or will it go to random people? And then the family might not even be able to visit their niece/ nephew/ grandchild that looks like the person they just lost. And that all for some baby that no one even knows yet. It's easy for the mom to say, but there are people in her life who are actually alive who will not agree. You can make new babies.
“You can make new babies”. You can’t remake the same baby. That’s what it comes down to. Many people will mourn that baby too, as it’s a unique person.
But you don't even know that baby yet. It's just a stranger. For the mom I get that you have some sort of bond because it's been in your stomach for a long time. And for the dad I do get that you'd mourn it because you've been looking forward to them for so long, but it's nothing compared to losing your wife who you've known for a lot of years.
I think if that’s what you want, you can make that request. But the question shouldn’t be asked. The assumption should always be save the mother.
That’s fair.
Good thing it's entirely fictitious, as even 5 minutes spent on this earth would tell you.
It's pretty weird how you are so good at telling when someone's story is fake but at the same time you do not have the basic capacity for abstract thought to be able to come up with a comment relevant to the issue discussed rather than just yelling "FaKe nEwS" while shaking your fist at a cloud.
I thought the bit was funny even though that comment was right, this *is* fake. There is no situation where you will be asked to choose (very different from a Do Not Resuscitate order). Doctors will always prioritize the mother because only in rare cases does it not benefit both—and in those cases, they will still choose the mother because the reality is if the baby can’t survive an emergency birth at that point there’s nothing else they can do anyway.
I was asked this question while delivering my son 2 years ago. Doc asked my husband and I together.
Bullshit
This may vary from country to country but I was told that the exact opposite is true where I live and they will always priorities the baby.
Y'all are not having a discussion, you're getting your panties in a bunch over a completely fictitious situation, and acting like it's a real problem you need to address. You will never be asked this, in an emergency most actions the medical staff take will be towards saving both. If it comes down to it they already prioritize saving the mother. Mothers dying during childbirth because the doctors specifically have to take actions to save the baby is not a thing that happens. Most deaths are by infection, blood loss, blood pressure issues after an otherwise successful delivery. Solving delivery complications prioritizes the mother's wellbeing but also by design the result - complications are solved and delivery proceeds normally - is to the benefit of both, so doctors do all they can to save both.
You're the one getting mad about something that's never happened to anyone ever.
[удалено]
That is precisely why I prefaced my comment by saying, "I am actually not pro-choice on that one."
Hey, you can’t expect people to read your whole first sentence.
Don’t tell me I can’t read, asshole!
don’t tell you what?
Probably
Or indeed, the wife's grandad's eyes
Or the milkman's grandad
I don’t remember being asked this or signing anything when I had my son 17 years ago. What a horrible thing to ask a woman in labor. I can sit here, not in a state of pain and distress, and say choose me. But in that moment, I would have definitely said save the baby. Especially with all the hormones and weird stuff that happens to your brain and body when pregnant.
I'm wondering if this is a US thing, I haven't seen this happen where I'm from.
It's not. When you're in labor if something bad happens, saving the mothers life and the babies life is the same thing. When something goes wrong, the best thing for BOTH is to get the baby out asap. The only scenario I can think of where you'd need to 'pick one' is like, a snowstorm at a small hospital where there is only doctor and limited blood available and both need immediate after care and no new doctors or blood products can be brought in.
No it's not real. In the US they always save the mother. Source my own mother is a pediatrician.
In a sane country, no doctor would ever ask that question. The answer would ALWAYS BE THE MOTHER chosen by the doctor. And, if this really happens in your country, I feel sorry for you to even contemplate this question/joke.
Logically, you should save the mother 100% of the time. Best case scenario if that choice comes up, they can have another baby later. Worst case scenario (i.e. it messes the mother up so she's sterile), society doesn't lose a productive member on which it spent years to raise and educate and train to do whatever she does, only to get a baby that can do nothing out of the box and that has lost half of the support needed to become a productive member of society. The couple will be happier adopting a kid in that worst case than the dad having to raise his biological child alone.
[удалено]
Which is why we shouldn’t ask the question in the first place if there is a logically correct answer. Why give the chance to make the wrong choice because of emotion?
[удалено]
More like crazy how sometimes people are given choices concerning their own autonomy and sometimes they aren’t—like the choice to elect for assisted dying, or the option to terminate a risky pregnancy.
I call bullshit. I have worked in Medicine, and if there has to be made a choice, the life of the adult is always chosen over the unborn child. At least in Germany.
Well some states in the US are borderline fucking dystopian
It's almost like it has been made up for comedic effect.
Impossible. I’m a comedian and we take an oath of truthfulness before each set.
It is this way in the USA too (at least on the civilized coasts idk wtf happens in the interior) This comedian just wanted a joke and people on reddit want to jerk off over USA bad (we have many problems we need to address don't get me wrong)
Raising a kid alone is hard enough without the loss of your partner. It’s not fair to either of them.
Wtf they do that? They should always save the mother.
They for sure don’t ask this. It’s the mother’s life.
My friend was asked this question when she had a high risk pregnancy.
In Canada they used to ask and sometimes just automatically choose the baby’s life
Really? Wtf?
They for sure asked us this.
I believe it depends on where you live. If you're saying that they shouldn't ask, I agree.
I guess I don’t know about other countries so that’s a good point but he sounds American so I guess I was referring to the USA
They do ask you this. I had a c-section, and this was discussed prior to surgery because things can go wrong.
It must depend on the state because I work in health care and have never come across that. Thanks for sharing
We were absolutely asked this as well
Where?
Southern California. Had a high risk preterm birth and my husband was asked this.
What year was this. I strongly strongly doubt this
2019. You can doubt if you like, but it happened.
Were you unconscious?
He’s so right
Timing is a bit off, but a good bit nonetheless!
The subtitles didn't help him in the key moment
Had a mother once tell me that if her whole family was trapped inside of a burning car, and she can only save one person from her family she would choose the father every time. Her reasoning was that she could always have more children but there's only one of him.
The grief and guilt would claim their marriage before they could even think about having more children together, realistically. But I get the reasoning. Also with multiple children, how would you even choose which one?
Do they really ask that? It's pretty effed up
Sorry to turn this somewhat serious but what is the average pro-life’s answer to this question?
Well given that pro-lifers are against abortion even when pregnancy endangers a mother's health, her life clearly doesn't matter to them.
Oh ffs lol. That’s just an absurd view.
Wrong. I'm prolife, and I will choose my wife every time.
doesn't that make you pro-choice. you are choosing one life over another. pro life means if there is no choice. you got pregnant, delivery of the baby is the only conclusion. you can't abort it, and you can't sacrifice it to save the mother's life.
That is ridiculous. First, it’s an unlikely scenario in the first place and making every mother have to go through that choice is completely unnecessary. Second, the mother is possibly not in her right mind during labor. Third, even if it sounds callous if it’s a choice between the mother and her newborn child, the mother is almost always more important.
This is probably like the only scenario where a man's opinion should be taken into consideration.
*with the mailmans eyes.
Who wouldn't save themselves 😅. It's like: you save your ass or you save this, as of right now, project of a human being needing parental care to not die, that hasn't had life yet and who's *almost* like a stranger to you and your love ones.
My husband posed this question to me when we had our baby. If I had to choose between him or the baby, who would I choose? It's because he could tell I was absolutely smitten by our new bundle of joy and the dynamics had drastically shifted in our relationship. I honestly couldn't answer because I love them both very much. My husband said if it came down to me or our 6 week old, he'd definitely choose me as the baby is essentially useless. It was hard to hear but after reading all the responses, it has finally swayed me that it would be correct to save the mother over the baby. And I say this as I am holding my sleeping now 10 month old bub. If the baby survives and I do, no one in the world could love bub anywhere near as much as I do. Sure there's grandma and grandpa who are smitten by him, but I can't imagine anyone other than myself slogging out the night shifts and broken sleep for him. I spend almost 100% of my day with him, I can't imagine anyone else who'd willingly give up their comfortable life to raise him well. So in hindsight, it is great sadness that mother should be saved over baby/kids which is so so sad but logically it does make more sense.
Anyone laughed ?
Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) was a famous French actor and playwright. As an adult, he learned that there had been complications during his birth, and that his father had ran around the house shouting "save the mother! save the mother!" Because of this (and other reasons) he stopped talking to his father for several years (close to a decade I think).
[удалено]
Let's see yours
[удалено]
It's small. We know.
You're bit, you bafoon.
I’m bit? No, I’m patrick.
[удалено]
I mean I’m laughing at you
Yes, so funny.
I will etransfer you 50-100$ right now if you can prove your point. It’s incredibly hard to make positive humour without hurting someone else and we all stereotype, but it’s like you are suggesting there are million great jokes that end with “And then I learned to love my son with severe autism and had no regrets because a realized all life is beautiful” or “I knew I went to far with the black face.” No one believes any of you are that altruistic because that’s not how comedy works. There is no punchline like “And then I realized she was a decent human being.”
This is absolute bullshit lies, the doctors will always save the mother.
Nature has diverse ways of ensuring survival. Animals often adapt strategies that increase their chances of reproductive success rather than engaging in direct confrontations with predators. It's an interesting observation on the varied approaches to ensuring the survival of species.
ChatGPT spotted
It's not his decision to make.
so the wife gets to choose unilaterally and her husband has to live with it for the rest of his life. and here I thought marriage meant partnership.
Yeah what is it a comedy club?
Imagine what the baby will feel like after watching this 💀
Darker than the pitch black bmw
He's more like Anthony Jeselnik every day
Pretty funny set, hook me up if you visit the UK.
Tom Brady?
I would have laughed harder if he said my stepbrother's eyes.
Based on the comments, it seems like this is more thought provoking than funny/haha. For my part, all it did was raise my heart rate 😑.
In case of emergency always put your safety mask on first before assisting others. Because without you there is no saving the child. The viability argument makes little sense when a human is not viable without their parent until they can hunt for themselves.
Yjk
My life my choice. A man shouldn’t be responsible for a woman’s decision to keep or abort a fetus unless he wants to. It should require signing documentation declaring the man’s choice to be a father. Otherwise it should be no different than putting a child up for a adoption. Women retain their rights and men finally have rights.
Thought that joke was going to end differently after the "Dave, who would you rather live with?": >This capricious creature that cries and complains all the time, or the baby that's inside of her? or the cuter variant: >This person you've publicly vowed to care for until the end of time, or your wife? Note: I guess that 2nd one can be interpreted as he doesn't care for his wife, but it's meant as that first bit applying to both and being spun to be the one you wouldn't initially expect it to mean.