Laughing…can’t…breathe…help…
I agree. The scenario in the OP was basically either let the kid burn to death in pain, or quickly shoot him. WHY is this such an ethically difficult concept?
Because the real answer, as already given a couple of times at least, is that one would do anything possible, at any cost (up to and including giving up one’s own life), to save one’s child.
The OP is served much better by the humor than by attempting to treat it with any seriousness.
The only options given are so shockingly bad, it’s comical.
“If you had to eat one of your parents, would you rather eat your mom or your dad?”
“Oh, definitely my mom. My dad has incredibly bad taste. You should see the Hawaiian shirts he wears!”
[Moderator Hat ON]
OK, the thread has gone on long enough, and a more serious discussion of euthanasia is already in another thread. This thread will never get a serious discussion and has mostly wound down.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
[sub]Sometimes I leave threads open because they’re funny.[/sub]
[sub]Opened because apparently people really like the thread. I’m not a big ol’ softie. Really I’m not.[/sub]
No, it’s if you had to eat both your parents, but only had enough A-1 sauce to cover one, which one do you eat first?
Liquid Hitler?
I’d buy that for a dollar! 
Well if we are going to invoke Hitler - what if a Nazi said you could keep one of your children only and if you didn’t choose he would kill both.
Kalhoun: Hey, merry fucking christmas, dude!
(sums up the quality of the hypothetical)
ShibbOleth: I’d shoot the asshole who put a child in the front see of the car.
Rjung: Why’s the seven-year-old pinned by the dashboard, anyway? If he was properly seated and secured in a regulation safety car seat, in the rear row of the car, getting him out would be relatively straightforward.
And how does a tire blowout cause your car to hit a tree at breakneck speeds, anyway? Having experienced real tire blowouts, I can say they’re nowhere near the “wildly uncontrollable deathtrap disaster” that the OP postulates.
In short, since this is all bad-movie-making-melodrama, I guess it’s up to the screenwriter to come up with whatever contrived ending he wants.
(makes the excellent point that these situations don’t arise out of nowhere)
Peasea: Shoot the kid.
I mean, $90 for sneakers? Come on!
(a touch of class )
pravnik: The only options given are so shockingly bad, it’s comical.
“If you had to eat one of your parents, would you rather eat your mom or your dad?”
“Oh, definitely my mom. My dad has incredibly bad taste. You should see the Hawaiian shirts he wears!”
(quite so)
I think I can easily improve on the hypothetical:
You have bought a used car from a man in the street. Although there was no logbook or documented history, it was really cheap!
Having had a lot to drink, you decide to take your child for a drive. To make it more exciting, you put him on your lap!
The seat belt makes it difficult to stop him squirming, so you take it off. Noticing it is starting to rain, you speed up to save time.
Getting a mobile phone call means you have to put your cigarette down next to the spare can of petrol you keep on the front seat…
At this point, you have an
entirely unforeseen accident
, culminating in your child being trapped in a burning car.
Fortunately there is a bright side. Your mobile phone has a video option, so you can keep a record of your son’s death to remember him by.
Next, since you have stupidly forgotten to bring your automatic rifle :wally , the only option is to strangle him. Or not.
What do you do?
More interestingly (this one’s for Kel Varnsen - Latex Division) how do you break it to your wife?
I find the nearest Dutch hospital.
hehehehehehe 
If we’re talking seriously silly hypothetical situations how about this: You’re driving down the road when you have a blowout on you left rear tire. Your car leaves the road, striking a tree. Your son is ok, but you know that sometimes his life will not be perfect. He will undoubtedly have some painfully bad things happen to him in his life. Eventually he will die. Do you kill him now,(making it look like he was killed in the accident), and saving him much suffering, or do you let him live?
If we’re talking seriously silly hypothetical situations how about this: You’re driving down the road when you have a blowout on you left rear tire. Your car leaves the road, striking a tree.
You think it’s a fine opportunity to grab the sexy woman sitting next to you.
Then, you think you might make yourself a son in the process.
The son will undoubtedly have some painfully bad things happen to him in his life. Eventually he will die.
Do you kill the sexy woman now and save your future son from much suffering, or do you let her live?
Cut through the frame of the bus so that when the train hits it and derails, it breaks into two pieces that fall on both sides.
As for the OP…
If it’s trapped in with the dashboard to the extent that you could not pull it free, it’s already dead. I would break what was necessary to get the kid free… either on the car or on the kid.
I would have to go w/ this one, and use every last round I got trying to free my child, and be thankful that I live in a country that allows the people the right to keep and bear arms, so I might have this chance of saving my child.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will use their guns to blast the dashboards of their burning cars into little bitty bits in order to free their trapped children.
I dunno. I think a chainsaw would work better in that sort of situation. Which states issue Concealed Chainsaw Licenses, anyway?
Well, portions of him, anyway. Or isn’t that what you meant by “keep and bear arms?” :dubious:
What if your kid is burning to death in a car and your only options are
[ul]
[li]giving a chain saw to Hitler, or[/li][li]giving a machine gun to Charles Manson[/li][/ul]
how would you solve that conundrum?
Give the chain saw to Hitler. Then, after he’s freed the kid, shoot the Hitler!