So, would you apply that same standard to a soldier who lost his legs by covering his companion in a foxhole during a grenade attack?
After all, He would have sustained the same injuries whether he saved his buddy’ life or not.
Whether or not the media is sensationalizing it, the children were unscathed due to this woman’s heroic actions.
>> would you apply that same standard to a soldier who lost his legs by covering his companion in a foxhole during a grenade attack? <<
Probably heroic, but maybe not. It all depends on the particular details of the event. You can’t generalize about such a matter when you don’t know the specifics.
>> the children were unscathed due to this woman’s heroic actions <<
Although I have the greatest and most sincere sympathy for this woman and her family, and although I can thankfully give praise to God that they all survived, her leg injuries are really beside the point.
In other words, it’s not as if she rushed into harm’s way to save her children and lost her legs as a result. She simply took shelter in the basement with the kids, just as any sane and clear-thinking person would have done.
Moreover, it was wonderful that she had the sense of mind to put the children under her own body. But again, that action was not a “heroic” step that exposed her to some greater danger than she otherwise would have faced. It was, rather, very smart and very prescient thinking.
So if you want to call her heroic for being cool, calm, collected and smart in the face of danger, I’m with you. But the tragedy of her losing her legs is basically irrelevant. It just a factoid that gives the news media a “hook” for sensationalism.