[WpgGweedo]

.

[-Mario-]

#1... IMAO deafness is not heritary... The whole question is foolish (not gonna present the situation that way). No, I will not allow it. She might abort a lot of perfectly healthy kids before she gets what she wants.

#2... how many people is on that train... why change tracks when you don't know where the train is gonna end up. Or worse, if its cargo train, loaded with toxic material. THen you didn't save 5 kids... you might have killed a whole town (including yourself).

#2b... If she isn't on life support, then NO. We must give her a chance.

[usababe]

hm...tis interesting...no time now but will review this again later....

[newbornkefka]

#1 the lady has every right to get the test even if it may resault in the death of her child she will have to live the pain of her child being dead

#2 it is better to save the futer of 5 people rather then 1


only my thoughts though

[Snow]

#1 i'd probably just lie

#2 You see the result of my lie, 5 deaf children playing on train tracks.

[lynxpilot]

Snow Snow:

#1 i'd probably just lie

#2 You see the result of my lie, 5 deaf children playing on train tracks.

that's funny

[dgthe3]

#1: the woman should not abort her child on the baisis of whether or not it will be able to hear when it is born

#2a: Switch the track and then run as fast as i can to try and warn the old lady. 5 lives young lives are worth than 1 old life, but all life is valuable

#2b: i would not kill the woman to save the childern. There is no gaurentee that any of them will die due to my inaction

[Kristine]

Honestly....

1. I would personally not allow her to take the test, unless that is against the law. Or I would allow her to take the test, and give her a number to a councillor or family planner to make her realize that physical disabilities should not be a matter of life or death.

2. Seeing as I would have no other choice (which the majority of the people who answered to this question didn't understand - why would you answer the question if you're not taking it seriously? OH WELL), saving 5 lives is obviously better than saving one, it's not even a matter of age there. If it was 5 elderly people vs. 5 children, well that would be a more difficult question. But even so, if there was a parent and child trapped in a burning building, and you could only save one, which one would you chose? Obviously, the child.

2.b. If there was a chance for life for the old woman, then killing her would be murder. It would be against anything that we have believed in as human beings since existence - such as the belief that ending someone's life prematurely is so wrong. If that became right, there would be no order, no justice, no more right to life. (Hm, Terry Schiavo debate, anyone?)

[dennis_is_canadian]

I agree with Kristine.

As for the Terry Debate, I think the U.S government was horrible for not granting the families wishes to have their daughter live. Not only did they pre-maturley end some ones life, they hurt the entire family. People may argue that she was unresponsive and wasn't much alive in the first place, but Im human and therefore I feel remorce and compassion. I would never have let a person die, espeacially when the family is pleading to keep that person alive. Thats my thoughts on that situation.

Dennis
22/Manitoba

[Raptor]

#1. Let her take the test. The decision is hers to make. Not mine.

#2. To hell with the lever. Stop the train.

#3. I'd have to get the doctors opinion based on that information.