W
white_sheep
Guest
This was perfect.
The problem in the OP is that several issues are conflated. This is the answer to the correct question. Whether or not children are the primary purpose of marriage is a different question.
- Status
The problem in the OP is that several issues are conflated. This is the answer to the correct question. Whether or not children are the primary purpose of marriage is a different question.
Well, unless someone can come up with a moral teaching that proves me wrong, this is my stand.Woah… really?That’s so bizarre to read. I wasn’t expecting anybody to even suggest that.
You shouldn’t love your wife less than your child, but an equal love doesn’t mean that there isn’t a prioritization in terms of protecting. Your wife is another adult, like you. Your child is young, vulnerable, and dependent. It seems so incredibly intuitive that you would save your child first without a second thought, and that your spouse would readily agree with losing their own life before their child’s.
Goodness, if I had a wife and she saved me over our kid, I can’t imagine how indescribably furious I would be with her. I could only forgive her by the infinite mercy of God. I certainly couldn’t accomplish it by my own power. Just the thought of it makes my blood boil. Left to my own devices, without Divine Aid, things would turn Spartan very quickly. Good God, I would see her crucified.
A
Allegra
Guest
I don’t think you can put either first. The most important thing you can do for your children is provide them with a stable family, and that means always nurturing your relationship with your spouse. However, the very purpose of marriage is bringing children into the world. Of course, when children are dependent, spouses often agree to put the needs of their children before expensive date nights or couples vacations, but that doesn’t mean that spousal bonding should be put completely on hold. You have to be creative and find ways to build your relationship, even when your primary focus is young children.
A
Allegra
Guest
I would want my husband to protect our children and I think he would want the same. Besides, I can’t lift him.
K
Kelfa28
Guest
Well, my husband could guarantee saving our youngest if he went for me. I’ve got our youngest attached to me at all times except at night when we are sleeping.I asked hubby “if our baby and I happen to cross a street and a car is going to hit us, who would you save, the baby or me?”. He said “I would push you both.” I wentand he says “you are always wearing the baby, right? so I will save both.”
Then I asked, “what if the plane goes down and baby and I are drowning, who would you save?” He said “both, he’s always with you…”
“But what if he is not a baby, but a big child?”, I say. “For now, I don’t want to think about that. Right now, our son is just a baby.”, he said.
But…that is a question that my pediatrician has asked…not so much spouse vs children but which children do we each go get in the event of a fire…especially at night.
For now I get the baby and he fetches the oldest and middle. He’s faster and stronger and both girls go to Daddy when they are really scared.
It’s hard to imagine…especially when your children are older but still need you to take care of them. It’s easy to think about when you have one child and the child is a baby.
I’d just hope that if we were in that situation my husband would save as many, if not all three, of our babies before he even thought about me.
Mostly because I can’t fathom any of my children facing death’s door alone and scared without someone there to help them.
I know I’d never forgive my husband if he only saved me and could have saved one of our babies instead.
I’d be devastated because, right now, my children are babies and depend on their parents for survival.
E
E_7
Guest
I’m with you. And I prefer he saves my son instead of me if he can’t save us both. If he lets my son die over me, believe me, I wouldn’t want any more children with him. And if I’m the one who is in a situation to decide between saving my son or my hubby, I would choose my son for various reasons. And I get the feeling that it will be more painful to lose my son who is depending on me for survival like you said than losing my husband. To imagine my child’s face in his last moment if I choose my husband is really horribly painful. I know that if I choose my son, my husband will understand.
Hubby, if you are reading this, I love you!
K
kptrs
Guest
I really don’t think that’s what the “1.God, 2.Spouse, 3.Children” prioritization hierarchy means.
Most of the time, I’d imagine these “if you could only save one who would you choose” situations are purely hypothetical. I mean, I wonder how often they really happen? Hopefully not often.
In any case, if I had to choose between my spouse or my child, I’d like to think I’d choose both of them and sacrifice myself.
If that wasn’t an option and I really had to choose one or the other, all I can say is I pray to God that never happens. Having to choose between loved ones is a sickening thought.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Having the conversation about whether some scenario or other puts you in an “I want you, my child, to get the last parachute” situation or a “parents should put their own oxygen masks on first before attempting to assist their children” situation is entirely appropriate. Reacting with anger because someone made what you think was the wrong decision during a tragic accident is something else again. That goes double for your spouse.
Save your important electronic copies to a cloud or put your digital photographs and other precious electronic data on a stick, put that copy in a safety deposit box, and just get the living out of the house if there is a fire, yes. (Still, evacuation plans that include important belongings or necessary supplies is not a bad idea. Sometimes you do get enough time to take things, if you have organized yourselves in advance.)
X
Xantippe
Guest
It may not be “appropriate” but it is a very human, natural and totally foreseeable response.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I am not buying that a massive problem that can predictably last the rest of someone’s life is an inalterable response. I don’t know what a “human” response is, but that is not Christian. Why? It is not just a punishing initial reaction being described, which would be crushing enough, but a plan to punish–double down on what is already massive? wow–and to do it indefinitely by planning to hold a grudge.
Forget whether the scenario in question ever happens, because is probably won’t. That kind of talk lets a spouse know exactly where he stands with his wife. I don’t mean, “I’ll save the children before I save you.” Many adults would save a child before an adult, because a child can’t possibly come to and save himself. I mean that the wife is in effect telling her husband that his standing is “do what I think you should do, even in an emergency, or else I will make you suffer for it forever after.”
I don’t think she means that, I do believe she is only trying to be adamant that the children ought to be saved before her, but it could easily be what her husband hears if she puts it the way she chose to word it. There are better ways to say, “100 times out of a 100, save them first, and know after I am gone that you only did what I wanted you to do and what I would have done myself, if I could only save them or myself.”
More to the point, if Heaven forbid he ever has a lapse and they lose a child by his fault, how will she ever convince him that she does not hold a grudge and that he should forgive himself? She won’t have to beat him up for a lifetime, but she might have to live with her part in his beating himself up for a lifetime. If they lost a child together, they will need to be there for each other, not lost in his never-ending self-recriminations. That would double the tragedy, for she would lose both her child and her husband.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I also think that the concept of a life threatening situation that will kill either your spouse or your child and you have to choose which is a different question. I would probably save the child first.
The question of does your spouse or children come first in your marriage and family relationship is not the same question. You have to prioritize that which is necessary to maintain a good and healthy marriage first. Your spouse and your marriage must take priority. Period. You can’t neglect your spouse for the sake of the children, or you will just end up neglecting the children in other ways. Creating an alienated, neglected, and resentful husband or wife is not the best way to care for your children.
The question of does your spouse or children come first in your marriage and family relationship is not the same question. You have to prioritize that which is necessary to maintain a good and healthy marriage first. Your spouse and your marriage must take priority. Period. You can’t neglect your spouse for the sake of the children, or you will just end up neglecting the children in other ways. Creating an alienated, neglected, and resentful husband or wife is not the best way to care for your children.
M
marymary1975
Guest
It is not so much that is an emergency decision that suited me. While it is hard to predict reactions in panic situations any human being of.normal intelligence that is a good parent knows that has a responsibility and a duty as a parent towards that child, hence any good parent in an emergency would react protecting the child first. That is because obviously an adult.can take care of his her own self and can deal with the situation and a child cannot and even from.a cultural standpoint we have been wires to take care of the vulnerable.first.
A reaction of simply “ah let the child die whatever” sincerely is plain irresponsible and.selfish and shows that as a parent you don’t have your priorities in a correct way. I marry my husband in good part because he is an extremely responsible person, excellent parent, very intelligent and is very good at priorities so I expect him to behave in that way even in an emergency, particularly if the reaction is what it would be expected from a reasonable.human being.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Actually cases of fires on which one spouse gets out and the other one gets trapped inside are more common.than what you think. Generally the outcome is that the parent goes back to rescue the child first and then the spouse.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I think there are many adults who would save a child, even one they do not even know, over any adult, even their own spouse, when it came to the heat of the moment. As you say, it is both because the adult is more likely to come to and be able to help himself or herself and because the child will obviously be overcome by smoke, hypothermia, or whatever more quickly, because of being smaller.
If the child were an adult and the spouse were getting up in years, then it reverses. Let us face it: in that case, we’d direct our child to save our spouse, rather than us. It is even possible we would allow ourselves to be saved in the recognition that our child, being more able-bodied, was judged by the rescuer to be more capable of helping himself or herself or of holding on for longer than we could until more help could arrive.
We digress, however. For most of our lives, we are talking about prioritizing the distribution of time and resources in a way that has little or nothing to do with life and death! In those cases, I think it is best to address true need first, and then to prioritize desires after that. Seeing to the relationship between husband and wife and the individual relationships between each parent and each child ought to be seen as a true need.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Your first paragraph is completely.right. and.not only because of that but also because we have been.habitually thought by society that children and the elderly must be rescued first. So when impulse reaction kicks in most people will react based on habit.
However, keep in mind that with regard to the OP I believe in a.household the marriage needs priority. You cannot teach a. Child that they are the center of the world and children thrive in a household in which the marriage is happy. But you cannot neglect a child and.Under specific circumstances certain priorities have to come first. If my two month old is hungry I have to feed her as my husband is perfectly capable of grabbing a plate and eat by himself. My two month old can’t. The case of the sinking.ship is.also a.specific circumstance in which you have to sort priorities according the capabilities of the person’s.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I could not agree more. A child is most secure if he or she has parents who obviously cherish each other as much as they cherish him or her and if the prevailing attitude of the household is that every person sees to the welfare of others and accepts help from others as ability and need allow. A child needs to feel, “we all love each other, we can count on each other, we sacrifice for each other,” rather than having it seem that there is a priority list in which they are superior to a parent or vice versa.
E
E_7
Guest
I think so too.
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Speaking as a husband, if I had a husband, he’d be first.
Yep. That’s awkward.
Yep. That’s awkward.
G
Gliggle
Guest
I was told by a priest that the principle purpose of marriage is to get your spouse to heaven. Marriage is still marriage without children, therefore children do not make the marriage.
Spouse’s soul always takes priority, howeve, I don’t believe there is any conflict, to care for the soul of your spouse is to care for that of your children.
Where phyisical and day to day concerns come into the picture, of course it is about managing priorities on a cases by case basis. But to me it really seems to make sense that to care for a spouse is to care for the children. Not only do they get the benefit of two healthy loving parents, they learn how to treat their own spouse and others when they grow up. If a child’s needs always come first, they may continue this attitude later in life. Having said this my husband and I drop everything at the beck and call of our daughter, but that is our own weakness.
On the who gets to live/die scenario, I would still chooses the child, because in doing so i see no contradiction: I put both of their needs first, which should coincide completely. The child’s need for protection and our need as parents to protect the child. We see this through the example of people such as St Gianna Beretta Molla, who gave up her life instead of having an indirect abortion as a result of a hysterectomy (which would have been allowed by the church). She instead willingly gave her life for her child. If her husband supported here in this choice (and I assume he did), he fulfilled his first responsibility to her soul, and his second responsibility to the life of his child. As you see, there was no contradiction.
Spouse’s soul always takes priority, howeve, I don’t believe there is any conflict, to care for the soul of your spouse is to care for that of your children.
Where phyisical and day to day concerns come into the picture, of course it is about managing priorities on a cases by case basis. But to me it really seems to make sense that to care for a spouse is to care for the children. Not only do they get the benefit of two healthy loving parents, they learn how to treat their own spouse and others when they grow up. If a child’s needs always come first, they may continue this attitude later in life. Having said this my husband and I drop everything at the beck and call of our daughter, but that is our own weakness.
On the who gets to live/die scenario, I would still chooses the child, because in doing so i see no contradiction: I put both of their needs first, which should coincide completely. The child’s need for protection and our need as parents to protect the child. We see this through the example of people such as St Gianna Beretta Molla, who gave up her life instead of having an indirect abortion as a result of a hysterectomy (which would have been allowed by the church). She instead willingly gave her life for her child. If her husband supported here in this choice (and I assume he did), he fulfilled his first responsibility to her soul, and his second responsibility to the life of his child. As you see, there was no contradiction.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Wow great post. Particularly the part about St Giana Molla
- Status