

It’s good too always bear this in mind when asking this question: Sophie’s choice is a thought experiment. Meaning that the perfect conditions where a parent has to choose one child to live based on their personal preference, don’t exist. If both kids are in danger of being hit by a bus, the parent will grab both of them. Or if the parent has only one arm, they will grab the one who’s more in danger, or even get themselves in the way to save both kids.
In less dramatic circumstances, the parent might choose to give more money to kid 1 because they think they need it more, or because they think they will manage it better. It doesn’t mean they love kid 1 more than kid 2.
I’m a parent. I have infinite love for both of my kids. Love doesn’t play favourites or get into mind games. I love them differently because they are two different people. Treating them exactly the same would lead to unfairness, because their needs are not exactly the same. That applies to the ‘who do I save?’ scenario too, because invariably, one of them will be in more danger/be more possible to save than the other one in that moment.


I’m sorry to hear that. Some parents are worse than useless, which means you get to make your own connections with people you choose. Is the money in the will enough to buy your obedience to someone who actively makes you depressed?