Giving your life to save a child - is that a requirement for women?

You may have seen this thread in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5109796&mesg_id=5109796

In short, a woman, who could not swim, was sentenced to prison because she did not jump into a flooded river to save the child of a man she was dating. The child later drowned, and she was deemed negligent for not rescuing it, even though she couldn't swim.

Anyway, one poster made this point (emphasis mine):

SNIP
You notice how this woman's attempt to keep the child away from the riverbank suddenly turned into a "legal" obligation to put her own life in extreme peril and snatch the kid out of the raging waters -- even though the woman couldn't swim?
SNIP
And the prosecutor and jury got cheesed off at her nerve in refusing to make a useless sacrifice of herself for the sake of the Child.
SNIP
Basically, she cheated the community of the heart-warming moral that could have made the sad tale of the drowned youngster go down a little easier. After all, if she had drowned too, then at least we'd all be left with the comforting knowledge that women still recognize their own lives as completely worthless, especially when the needs of Offspring -- even other people's Offspring -- enter the picture.
SNIP

Here is that full post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5109796#5110392

It got me to thinking about whether there is some unspoken obligation on the part of women in general to do whatever is necessary to save the life of a child, even if the child is not yours. The father of this child was prosecuted too, but it seemed as if they were really out to get this woman. If the situation were completely reversed, would the man have been expected to sacrifice his life to save a child that was not his? I honestly don't know, I never really thought about this before.

It's an interesting case, but it seems unfair to me to expect anyone to give up their life to save another person's child. But, in the context of society's expectations, is there some unspoken obligation for women? Just throwing it out for discussion.

that people are required to risk their life for another - at any age.

It sounds likely - from what you wrote - that she would have died as well as the child.

They're notoriously idiotic there, conservative and unthinking. I grew up there, so this decision doesn't surprise me.

It'll be overturned.

someone please keep us updated on her case.

I agree that the decision will eventually be overturned on appeal...and rightly so.

I disagree that Pennsylvanians are "notoriously idiotic," and "conservative and unthinking."

I grew up in Pennsylvania, too. As a matter of fact, I still live in Pennsylvania and I don't consider myself to be any of the adjectives you used. While we obviously have a good amount of "Pennsyltuckians," as we call them, Santorum is currently polling head and shoulders behind Casey and we were "blue" in both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

and a requirement, if not legally at least in the minds of many people, that women will sacrifice not just for children but for men as well.

It's not as bad as it used to be, but still very much there.