MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Would you give up a £50 train seat for a pregnant woman?

mr-tom_2

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

That scenario wasn't part of the dilemma we were given.

Why do some people (in general I mean, I'm not picking anyone out) not understand that if the question was different, it would have warranted a different answer?

Nothing to apologise for. It's a fair question.

And here is the original scenario:

Would you give up a £50 train seat for a pregnant woman?

You book an advance seat on a five-hour train journey. It’s a Bank Holiday weekend, and there’s standing room only for non-reserved passengers, including a heavily pregnant woman. Normally you'd be up in a flash, but are loathe to give up your seat, as you paid £50 for it and booked early, knowing it would be crowded.

I can only speak for myself, but I actually didn't change the scenario even a tiny bit. :A

Instead, I simply asked you to consider the worst possible consequences of remaining seated and asked how you would feel if that happened.

Other posters - as I say, I can only speak for myself and encourage others to keep it nice and to be reasonable.

Tiger_greeneyes

Hi Mr-Tom

My point is that worst possible consequences weren't anything to do with the original question.

I know you asked people to consider the consequences of remaining seated but in all fairness that's a completely different thread. It also deserves a completely different answer which I've pointed out several times. Just the once should have been sufficient to answer your question I won't be changing my answer on this particular thread, it remains a resounding 'no'. However, if another dilemma comes along which says the woman/baby is suffering in any way then of course I'll answer that question - but my answer will be relevant to that particular dilemma and will bear no relation to this thread/dilemma.

mr-tom_2

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

Hi Mr-Tom

My point is that worst possible consequences weren't anything to do with the original question.

I know you asked people to consider the consequences of remaining seated but in all fairness that's a completely different thread. It also deserves a completely different answer which I've pointed out several times. Just the once should have been sufficient to answer your question I won't be changing my answer on this particular thread, it remains a resounding 'no'. However, if another dilemma comes along which says the woman/baby is suffering in any way then of course I'll answer that question - but my answer will be relevant to that particular dilemma and will bear no relation to this thread/dilemma.

Fair enough.

And this is in no way a dig (or an attempt to change your mind) but surely it is often wise to consider possible consequences of one's actions? Especially when facing something of a dilemma?

I can honestly say it didn't even occur to me that consequences would be more appropriately housed in another thread.

Sincerest apologies.

twentypenceoff

sighty off topic but similar, i remeber seeing a very angry letter printed in a local newspaper some time ago, from the fater of a woman who was pregnant who had been taken ill on a train (vomiting) and nobody had stopped to help.

I don't know if she had a seat or not.

but would you have stopped to help, i am presuming she didn't ask for help.

I knwo i have felt ill myself while out and never asked for hep, i would much rather get home as soon as possible, and not draw attention to myself.

Tiger_greeneyes

mr-tom wrote: »

Fair enough.

And this is in no way a dig (or an attempt to change your mind) but surely it is often wise to consider possible consequences of one's actions? Especially when facing something of a dilemma?

I can honestly say it didn't even occur to me that consequences would be more appropriately housed in another thread.

Sincerest apologies.

In non-hypothetical circumstances, yes, absolutely But it's still another matter as this was a hypothetical scenario. As it was, the lady was simply pregnant, no more and no less.

Have you heard of "catastrophising"? It's what a lot of people in this thread have actually been doing. They've been imagining the worst and it's got more and more dramatic and people have been becoming angrier and angrier, even though nothing has actually happened. A simple pregnancy escalated very quickly into all sorts of tragic circumstances and the people who have been blamed for each of these non-existent tragedies occurring were the very people who weren't catastrophising

Tiger_greeneyes

twentypenceoff wrote: »

sighty off topic but similar, i remeber seeing a very angry letter printed in a local newspaper some time ago, from the fater of a woman who was pregnant who had been taken ill on a train (vomiting) and nobody had stopped to help.

I don't know if she had a seat or not.

but would you have stopped to help, i am presuming she didn't ask for help.

I knwo i have felt ill myself while out and never asked for hep, i would much rather get home as soon as possible, and not draw attention to myself.

I've had people step over me when I've been laying on the ground with a broken arm, wrist and shoulder. I'd be the first to have stopped and helped any of them in the same circumstances

bartok_2

Lesley_Young wrote: »

:A Yes I would. Humanity is more important than money and some inconvenience. You never know the full circumstances that led to the need to travel.

I agree completely - and I'm a bloke, but unlike some others on this forum (who I would like to believe are replying "tongue in cheek" but I don't think they are, unfortunately) I am not so obsessed with penny-pinching or pound-pinching that I could ever be such a completely heartless, selfish ba****d. You guys are so up yourselves in your perfectly organised "ooh look at me, I'm so clever that I've got everything worked out" little thoughtboxes that you can't see that if a woman is pregnant she might have more to think about than booking online - get a life!

bartok_2

Tiger_greeneyes wrote: »

I can see your point However, it's simply not part of the question that was put to us to answer.

There's all sorts of highly unnecessary melodramatic assumptions been going on in this thread - the woman didn't ask to be pregnant because she was raped, she's on her last legs with a life-threatening illness or six, she can't walk, the child's life is in danger, she's in labour and now she's escaping a violent partner and has a dying relative to boot. I'm sure that if any information of that nature was actually included in the original question then chances are the thread would have gone in a completely different direction.

The trouble with this question is that for some unfathomable reason, it's sparked a lot of people into having highly over-emotional knee-jerk, histrionic responses. They have elevated themselves to moral judge and jury. They've decided it's perfectly acceptable to verbally abuse the people who aren't adding all that extra information to the question. Pathetic really, it says more about them than the people who have read the question and answered it as it is. One obnoxious degenerate has even seen fit to make highly derogatory and offensive remarks about my parents simply because s/he disagrees with my point of view. How exactly is that acceptable?

Meanwhile, the other camp are stepping back and not actually seeing where all the melodrama is coming from - as far as the question is concerned, she just hasn't booked a seat for herself. As someone else pointed out, as she's pregant and there's no available seats, she can get a free upgrade to first class. Job done. Where's the actual problem? Everyone gets a seat, nobody died :rolleyes:

Anyone would think that those of us who haven't added all sorts of tragic theatrics into the question or gone into histrionics about how this poor hypothetical woman is actually the victim of the century, and have actually dared to voice an opposing point of view are tantamount to public enemy no.1.

I couldn't live my life with such melodrama and hystrionics going on

You're the one who is making it complicated - it's a no-brainer - any real human being who can stand for a few hours would offer to give up their seat - dilemma?what dilemma? You're still going to reach your destination cos you're on the bloody train - not as if anyone's asking you to get off and walk, is it?

hundredk

bartok wrote: »

You're the one who is making it complicated - it's a no-brainer

Clearly not a no brainer judging by posters opinions..... :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

bartok wrote: »

any real human being who can stand for a few hours would offer to give up their seat

And you represent all real humans?:doh:

bartok wrote: »

dilemma?what dilemma? You're still going to reach your destination cos you're on the bloody train - not as if anyone's asking you to get off and walk, is it?

Its not as tho anyone is asking for the seat either. Wont the pregnant lady also reach her destination because she is on the train too?

englishmac

mr-tom wrote: »

Well if you're on the train, there's often a free Metro lying around.

Guilty of reading the Metro; not guilty of letting the pregnant woman stand.