http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/
In it they describe a moral quandary, that was used in the last episode of MASH, and it is a tough one:
You live in a village during wartime. Enemy soldiers have entered the village, and you are hiding with the other villagers. You all must remain absolutely silent, or be discovered and killed. But, you are holding your baby, and he/she has a cough. The only way to keep your baby silent, and save everyone else, is to smother it. if you do not smother your baby, everyone is discovered and killed. What do you do?
My immediate feeling is that I would smother my baby, and then kill myself once able. I know that my baby will die in either case, and I in one, but everyone else can live if I do it. I have this feeling that only if I share my baby's fate would it be fair.
Currently, I don't have a child. I wonder if my response will change when I do.
I'm genuinely not trying to pick a fight. I love all of my kids. like... a lot. And I can identify with that experience of holding that first kid for the first time. But magic aside, I also remember other life altering experiences of holding that first kid (and each subsequent kid) at 3 in the morning whilst they cry and cry and cry and wonder if or when I'll ever have 3 uninterrupted hours of sleep again.
For me personally, the first time I held my son, he was the very center of my universe and remains so still. Is he more important than my spouse? I would have to say yes. If I were to ask my wife if our son is more important to her than I, I am certain she would say yes also. It is not because we don't love each other. Far from it, it simply means that we love our son more. I recall the sleep deprivation, the piss in the face, and the runny stool on me all too well. As I am sure you will agree, it was all worth it and them some.
OK so having read the entire thread I would absolutely smother the kid (I don't have any of my own) because if I didn't, then I would die, the kid and everyone else would die. Just because this kid had a cough. The needs of the many and all. I do agree with mitzy though, if I couldn't bring myself to do it I would ask someone else to do it.
My existence on this planet is to protect my baby. The other villagers have the right to do what is best for them, but I protect my baby. If that means that I die trying to save her/him, then I've done everything in my power. If I can sacrifice myself by luring the soldiers away from the hiding villagers and I have an able bodied wife to raise that child, then I go that route. It is an awful dilemma indeed, but I could not ever choose my neighbor over my child.
Not judging it. In fact, I feel it's not completely different from my first response, but instead of me killing myself and the baby, you make the neighbors kill yourself and the baby. Oddly, I'd almost rather my baby die by my hand than my neighbor's. I think the idea of someone else doing it is particularly terrifying. I would hate to put his/her last moment in someone else's hands. They might be brutal.
On a similarly odd note, I have been fascinated by this new show "Doomsday Preppers". If you are unfamiliar with the show, there are two distinctly different subcultures among the "preppers". The first is your stereotypical gun-wielding troglodyte who is absolutely certain of the zombie apocalypse. The second are stockpiling pacifists who belief that hugs and apple cider will get them through a nuclear holocaust. I love this show! Though I know I've grossly oversimplified these good people, which camp would you fall in? The community garden or the one man army?