Who would you save?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jay74
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if I were more fond our our dog, I’d still save the human. —KCT
 
40.png
StephiePea:
I think this was a fun kinda goofy question, so don’t get yourself in a twist. If this is your idea of much love and peace, you can keep it!
Click to expand...
Dear friend

It is not my blessing, I am asking for God’s blessing on all those I speak with…I hope you wish to keep it. I haven’t been personally insulting to anyone and I have insulted you, please don’t do that to other people.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
I can’t vote. I love my dog too much! Don’t even want to go there…but…have any of you read “Life of Pi”? He saves a drowning tiger at sea. Interesting consequences. Great book!
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
Click to expand...
Sorry Bowser, you lose.
Paul
 
40.png
catechistben:
Humans are Humans, Dogs are Dogs. Keep it straight people (at least the 6 that have voted for the dog so far). http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon5.gif
Click to expand...
Very true.

It was refreshing to do this question here. In secular settings, like public high schools and colleges, at least a third vote againt the human.

I’m a dog and cat owner, so I would never suggest to anyone that they don’t treat animals well, or try to save a pet that is in trouble. The question is how far this nonsense of elevating animals to the status of humans has gone–and in secular circles it has gone too far. PETA actually has compared KFC to the Holocaust–only a true moral idiot or a tragically confused person could compare cooking fried chicken to taking families to ovens in boxcars.

Like I said, I love my dog and cat and would save them if I could, but not at the expense of human life. I certainly wouldn’t want to have children and have a neighbor who would save a pet first.

I’ve really enjoyed all the dialogue on this thread. I’ve recieved a couple private nasty comments off of it, which is sad. It has also been shot down as a terrible thread in the rating option, which is probably done by people who couldn’t just simply check the obvious answer–such people need our prayers.

Well, I’m outta here for a while. I’m goin’ to the chapel, and I’m gonna get married (seriously). Then i’m goin’ to the carribean. I’ll return from my honeymoon on the 22nd.

Blessings to everyone!
 
Yeah, it is shocking sometimes how some people think.

My uncle (a professor) asked his college students the following question (or something to this effect). “If you could feed 100 starving children in a third world country for five years, by giving up watching television, would you give it up?”

He was absolutely astounded that so many of his students said, “Hmmm, I’d have to think about it. I don’t know, I’m really attached to my t.v.”

HUH :confused:
 
I would have to say neither since I cannot swim.

But if I could swim (strongly- since I would be no help if I was a weak swimmer). I would save a stranger.
 
40.png
carrieanna:
We just had to put my dog down because he was suffering too much in his old age. 😦 If there was a situation where I had to choose between the life of an animal and the life of a human, you bet I would choose human life!
Click to expand...
Ditto! Loved our doggie much. But she would have been on her own, if it was a choice of a human vs her life. Usually, the dog is better equiped anyway to take care of itself. Not to mention, they would probably help save the stranger also. Dogs are that way. 😉
 
What a silly question. I’d try to save them both. I don’t believe in the no-win scenario either.
 
40.png
Sweetcakes:
What a silly question. I’d try to save them both. I don’t believe in the no-win scenario either.
Click to expand...
What a silly answer. Of course you can try to save both. Maybe the better way to word it would be “who would you save first”.

And anyone who has ever asked this question at a secular high school and listened to the morally confused answers wouldn’t call it silly. In fact, the answers hear have been quite refreshing (well, most of them anyway), and supports the belief that Christian values are indeed a positive.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
The stranger. Human life is far more valuable. Sorry Fido!
Click to expand...

If the stranger were a cat - the stranger​

Talking of strangers - this is on a very similar topic ##
 
Okay, the joke was funny but I take exception to the denigration of the cat! Love’em. Got 5 now plus the dog. 😃
 
40.png
FightingFat:
The stranger. Human life is far more valuable. Sorry Fido!
Click to expand...
I don’t agree that human life is more valuable than a dog. Any dog owner knows this.
 
40.png
catsrus:
Okay, the joke was funny but I take exception to the denigration of the cat! Love’em. Got 5 now plus the dog. 😃
Click to expand...

I prefer cats to dogs too.​

If the stranger were human, and wanted to die, it might be unethical to insist the stranger had to live.

One could always die instead of the stranger. ##
 
I really love General Beauregard but there is no way his life is worth more than any human’s. Besides if the general can’t swim in it I probably can’t either. Every dog I have ever seen could swim very well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top