Yet another hypothetical (moral) scenario...

[NIX]

Many people think that up until the moment arrises.
I'm not calling you out on this, but a lot of people find they can do many things they thought impossible if the circumstances are right.

Not only is it something that I literally cannot do for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here- but neither do I WANT to. At some point you have to put yourself and where applicable, the children you are already raising first. As in above and over everything else, because THAT is the best thing you can do. Not that I'm really taking issue with you I guess, as you did state that the circumstances must be right.

 

[Alceste]

Aww...

Many people think that up until the moment arrises.
I'm not calling you out on this, but a lot of people find they can do many things they thought impossible if the circumstances are right.

I agree, and that goes both ways. I'm sure there are a lot of people who think they could NEVER let a child suffer or die if they could do anything to help, or to give it comfort, who would quickly discover hidden new facets of their character if presented with the opportunity to take parental responsibility for a severely disabled or terminally ill child.

My mother used to volunteer as a "cuddler" at the local children's hospital. She'd hold, rock and sing to dying babies. The reason that's a role at all is that many parents can't bear to have any contact with their newborn child if they know the child is going to die.

Just saying. People are complicated and unpredictable.

 

[ChristineES]

I remember seeing on TV more than 25 years ago those Romanian babies that were never held, just fed and changed. Their eyes were so empty it made me cry. I don't like to see things like that happen-- it's heart breaking.

 

[Alex_G]

If the only way to save a baby from immediate death was to take it that very day, regardless of whatever else may be going on in your life (regardless of your financial situation, regardless of your work schedule, personal plans, other kids or anything else),
and adopt it as your own- would you do it?

Without question that's a yes. It would be as strong a yes for most animals as well for me.

 

[Me Myself]

Without question that's a yes. It would be as strong a yes for most animals as well for me.

How many dogs do you own?

I was under the impression that dogs were put down every day because people simply don't adopt them.

 

[Alex_G]

How many dogs do you own?

I was under the impression that dogs were put down every day because people simply don't adopt them.

2 dogs

 

[jarofthoughts]

Not only is it something that I literally cannot do for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here- but neither do I WANT to. At some point you have to put yourself and where applicable, the children you are already raising first. As in above and over everything else, because THAT is the best thing you can do. Not that I'm really taking issue with you I guess, as you did state that the circumstances must be right.

I don't know your reasons, and they are actually irrelevant, but in my case, wanting to does not enter into my list of priorities in that situation.
Sometimes you just do what you have to do because if you don't, you won't be able to live with yourself.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I agree, and that goes both ways. I'm sure there are a lot of people who think they could NEVER let a child suffer or die if they could do anything to help, or to give it comfort, who would quickly discover hidden new facets of their character if presented with the opportunity to take parental responsibility for a severely disabled or terminally ill child.

While I have not been in the situation described in the OP, I did think it through while working in northern Iraq.
The local justice out on the countryside can be quite harsh there, and I prepared myself for potential situations that could (but never did) arise.
And my conclusion was that if need be, I would have to just take care of matters and step up if that was what it would take.

My mother used to volunteer as a "cuddler" at the local children's hospital. She'd hold, rock and sing to dying babies. The reason that's a role at all is that many parents can't bear to have any contact with their newborn child if they know the child is going to die.

I think your mother just became one of my heroes.

Just saying. People are complicated and unpredictable.

Ain't that the truth...

 

[Me Myself]

2 dogs

Humm... but then shouldn't you be rescuing dogs from being put down all the time? >_>

 

[Father Heathen]

I would ready the stew pot.

 

[otokage007]

If the only way to save a baby from immediate death was to take it that very day, regardless of whatever else may be going on in your life (regardless of your financial situation, regardless of your work schedule, personal plans, other kids or anything else),
and adopt it as your own- would you do it?

Well, that's an odd question, pretty surreal. But of course, I would take him because the way you are asking it, it's actually your fault if he dies. And I would never let a baby die. Btw i don't think you will get a lot of "no I wouldn't take it, he can die I don't care :ignore:". What's your purpose?

 

[Me Myself]

Well, that's an odd question, pretty surreal. But of course, I would take him because the way you are asking it, it's actually your fault if he dies. And I would never let a baby die. Btw i don't think you will get a lot of "no I wouldn't take it, he can die I don't care :ignore:". What's your purpose?

So if I told you it is not one baby, but 20 babies, would you adopt all of them?

 

[Alceste]

I would ready the stew pot.

Good idea. It's hard to contemplate morality on an empty stomach!

 

[otokage007]

So if I told you it is not one baby, but 20 babies, would you adopt all of them?

Of course I would. Even if they were a thousand, if that's actually THE ONLY WAY to save them. What did u expect?

 

[Falvlun]

Of course I would. Even if they were a thousand, if that's actually THE ONLY WAY to save them. What did u expect?

I doubt that you'd be able to adequately care for 1000 babies, or 20, for that matter. When does quality of life become a factor?

 

[otokage007]

I doubt that you'd be able to adequately care for 1000 babies, or 20, for that matter. When does quality of life become a factor?

I doubt it too. Well I don't doubt it, I couldn't. But a fantasy-like question deserves a fantasy-like answer. The OP pointed out that wealth is not a factor to take into account, so I can save them without cash in my pocket.

But if we were to add some realism to this, well I wouldn't take not even ONE baby, and not because I wouldn't be able to mantain it (I can, but just one!), but because that baby deserves someone that actually wants to have him, not me.

 

[Alex_G]

Humm... but then shouldn't you be rescuing dogs from being put down all the time? >_>

You've inferred that from my answer to the hypothetical provided. The problem with correlating the hypothetical so rigidly with the real world is that the degree of complexity increases exponentially, and with complexity comes many more things to consider that can be, and are overlooked in the hypothetical.

For one, there is simply no way to adequately prevent all dogs from being put down. Its both a statistical and logistical impossibility, that immediately raises the question of how much is enough? or rather how do you feel/live with yourself knowing that what you do doesnt save all of them?

Additionally there is the unfortunate fact that one is less attached to things far away from you, and more attached/emotionally invested in that which is right in front of you. 'Out of sight out of mind'. Its not morally defensible, but i wont deny being a culprit of it, and i would hazard a guess that no one is beyond its effect, which are probably wired in us from an evolutionary perspective.

Again similar to that, again not really morally defensible is the effect of 'dilution of responsibility'. When you consider the dogs of the world, there also exists the whole world available to help them, potentially. There is inherently less pressure on you as an individual given such scope. But in the middle of the woods, if you saw a hurt puppy, the burden of responsibility is focused entirely on you, making it much more likely that you intervene and help. This has been a demonstrated pattern of behaviour for humans, and in all honestly its not very praise worthy.

Further to that, would taking on too much responsibility just simply lead to the detriment of the dogs u initially set out to help? Yet another factor to consider that would limit your actions. Is it not important to be responsible in what you put on your plate and help few rather than fail all?

Also in expressing my care and concern for animals through my answer to the hypothetical, you assume that i have not got other concerns in life of equal or greater value. You've assumed here, that my answers in this thread constitute all of who i am and what i care about. Otherwise you wouldnt have used the phrasing ' rescuing dogs from being put down all the time?'.

i could go on but i think my point is that there is a chasm of difference between a crisp answer to a lean and clean hypothetical, an answer that lends itself to the likely motive of such hypothetical to glean a clear judgment of value from the person answering, and that of the same answer being in response to the state of the real world. The difference between them being all the things you can rationally contrast between that of the hypothetical and the real world...

Finally i'd like to know why you ask me such a crude question. Do you presume you've had some great insight that I’ve missed, perhaps opening my eyes or catching me out?
What real point are you making with such a move? I mean what answer did you expect to get to 'How many dogs have you got?' 'All of them' perhaps? :areyoucra