Well, this is a highly Jesuitical mindset ... to test various principles through casuistry. Nevertheless, if God were to put you in a situation where you required Baptism in danger of death and the only person around was a double amputee (what are the statistical odds?), well, you probably had some other issues to begin with. God's Providence doesn't ordinarily work like this. Danger of Death Baptisms are relatively rare to being with, and in cases where they happen, God will arrange things so they can actually happen.
.
I have found Cryptinox's posting history to be relatively immature and at times worth a double-take, but as someone whose mind wanders I empathize with Jesuitical character to this question. And he is on record being very young, so it is better that he ask questions than not, so hopefully he can learn something. A desire to learn is good. Unusual questions can be a good way to tease out principles and identify boundaries (when they are asked in good faith, which I think they are in the case of Cryptinox).
.
Hi Cryptinox-- don't mean to talk as though you aren't there :)
.
As to the providential 'likelihood' of this or that, I am reminded of one of the famous North American Martyrs who was killed by an enemy tribe that raided the Indian camp hosting the Jesuits. He spent his last moments crawling about, baptizing whom he could. That he had limbs left to do this was purely contingent. It could have been otherwise quite easily.
.
There is an SSPX priest with one arm. Again, he could have had none just as easily.
.
I am often surprised at traditional Catholics, of all people, placing limits on what God would or would not allow. We are frequently criticized by neo-cons and the like for lacking faith because there is no way God would allow a crisis of the magnitude we maintain. Perhaps traditionalism would have proven a more successful position if theologians had entertained its contingencies more than they did?