Your single coin can save us

Making the better choice

On your way to work, you pass a small pond. On hot days, children sometimes play in the pond, which is only about knee deep. The weather's cool today, though, and the hour is early, so you are surprised to see a child splashing about in the pond. As you get closer, you see that it is a very young child, just a toddler, who is flailing about, unable to stay upright or walk out of the pond. You look for the parents or babysitter, but there is no one else around.

The child is unable to keep his head above the water for more than  a few seconds at a time. If you don’t wade in and pull him out, he seems likely to drown. Wading in is easy and safe, but you will ruin the new shoes you bought only a few days ago, and get your suit wet and muddy. By the time you hand over the child to someone responsible for him, and change your clothes, you'll be late for work.

What should you do ? I teach a course called Practical Ethics. When we start talking about global poverty, I ask my students what they think you should do in this situation. Predictably, they respond that you should save the child.'What about your shoes ? And being late for work ?' I ask them. They brush that aside. How could anyone consider a pair of shoes, or missing an hour or two at work, as a reason for not saving a child's life? But consider that according to UNICEF nearly 10 million children under five years old die each year from causes orelated to poverty. Now think about your own situation.By donating a relatively small amount of money, you could save a child's life. Maybe it takes more than the amount needed to buy a pair of shoes-but we all spend money on things we don't really need, whether on drinks, meals out, clothing, movies,concerts, vacations, new cars or house renovation.

Is it possible that by chossing to spend your money on such things rather than contributing to an aid agency, you are leaving a child to die, a child you could have saved ? Most of us are absolutely certain that we would't hesitate to save a drowing child, and that we would do it at considerable cost to ourselves. Yet while thousands of children die each day, we spend money on things we take for granted and would hardly notice if they were not there. Is that wrong ? If so, how far does our obligation to the poor go ?

                                                ''Excerpt from the book ''THE LIFE YOU CAN SAVE'' by peter singer''

Railway Tracks

   How we were once,

When we are strangers in this world

Neither we are in love nor in pain

Neither we laugh nor do we cry

Our life belongs to us

We could do whatever we wish to

No more complain and order

No one takes decision for us

We can do by our self

Once we fell in relation

We are like the fish in the water

Wanna spend whole time with

Holding each other hand

Showing huge love to each other

We spend the time without value

Talking, laughing and sharing

Each and every thing we have

Missing each other every time

How happy when we are

In relation with somebody else

And we always wish to have such

In our entire life

But every passing day lost in

Silently steals the flame

The enthusiasm of the first day

Last no more

But each passing month,

Relation become farther and farther

We wish to be stranger

No more in need

Like we need in our first day

Rejecting each other request

Or making such excuse

That never heard before

Making each other downward

When two get in relation, they must stay frozen like that for the rest of their lives. You will move along side by side like parallel railway tracks, keeping always that same distance apart. Even if sometimes one of you needs to be little further away or a little closer, that is against the rules. You can't change; you must be like tracks that remain same distance apart all the way from their point of departure to their final destination.

Our relation should be like

The two railway tracks

Which never change when world change?

Which move side by side all the way.

Exam time.,