I was reading a rather lame thriller and the opening scene had a woman jogging through the park, pushing her baby in a stroller.
Someone attacks the woman and forces her to jump off a height or see her child thrown off. She chooses to jump to save her child.
But when I read that, I think the woman just condemned her child, and possibly other children, to life in the hands of a psycho. It struck me as a form of cowardice to jump.
But I have a feeling I’m in the minority on this. Thoughts?
Julie
The attacker kept the child after she jumped? Yeah, I’m with you. I don’t think that would be the best decision, but I don’t know what I’d do in the same situation. What happens in the book? What does the attacker do with the kid?
I think most parents, though, would choose the life of their child if they had to choose between themselves and the kid. We recently had a fire in our apartment building, so I was thinking about this subject. I think that if my child was trapped in a fire and I could get out by myself, I’d still go to be with him, even if was just to comfort him. Not something I like to think about.
Jump over a cliff and leave my kid? Yeah, right. I’d be damned if I’d willingly go without my kid(s).
My kids trapped in the car after it plunges off a bridge? I’m going down with them. My kids trapped in burning building? I’d be toast. No way would I voluntaryly leave my kid(s) in the hands of a psycho. He’d have to fight me to death, and even then it’s iffy if he’d actually get away with my kid.
Were I faced with that, ahem, rather improbable scenario, I would assume that even if I chose to save my own life, the psycho would kill me anyway (I’ve seen too much or whatever cliche they choose).
If I were faced with a situation like a house fire or submerged car, etc., I would likely die trying to save my child. If I had more than one child and one were safe, it would be a harder choice. But right now I have one little girl, and I would go out of my mind analyzing whether or not I could have done more. My job is to protect her and see that she grows up (or at least has the opportunity to grow up).
However, faced with the hypothetical psychopath you mentioned, I like to think my sacrifice would be made selflessly to protect my daughter. I fear, though, that I might sacrifice myself to avoid the horror of watching my child die in such a manner.
The weakness in the story line is that the women is going to trust someone not to harm her child if she kills herself. She kills herself and leaves her child with the killer and trusts he will do the right thing.
Throw away the book it can’t be worth your time reading it.
Wellll, I’d tell you but I didn’t keep reading. Did I mention that it was lame? 
Julie
As Homer Simpson says - “it’s every parents dream to outlive their children.”
it depends on who you want to screw up. Generally if kids’ parents die when they’re young, they end up screwy. That hasn’t happened to me, but all the people i know (except for one exception) who have had that happen to them have not ended up the healthiest in the world. if you don’t die for your kid, something will be wrong with you. I dunno… i think that dying for your kid is the right thing to do, although i don’t really know if I’d do it. then again i don’t have children 
Well, my personal order of who to save would be kid(s), wife(s), myself.
If my kid was in danger and my wife was safe, I would do anything to save them including giving my life. The harder choice is if you don’t have a wife (or she’s already dead) and you have, say, 3 kids, 2 are safe and 1 isn’t. Would you risk loosing their only dad to save 1 of 3 kids?
I’d hate to think about it but I think a part of me would have to make sure my 2 kids are safe first and then worry about the last. I would also of course consider how suicidal the attempt is at saving the last kid (100% no chance, I don’t think I would).
I do believe that kids without parents (young kids anyways) do get harmed without any parent left alive so I would consider their well being.