Originally Posted by D

You're right in the murder thing. I'm sorry - I thought I caught the word "killed" as I scanned the second half of the article - not feeling up to reading the specifics after I felt I had already caught the gist in the first half.

That said, and article fully read, I'm still sticking to "no," as I would have even if they ended the incident by stomping her head flat.

Putting aside the ethical dilemma of murdering a moment, I think it's better to learn from something as much as possible and apply that knowledge rather than simply cut your losses, bury that something under a rug, and hope it never surfaces again - for, as it will surface again, we might as well do what we can to prepare ourselves for it.

You seem an educated individual. If you've yet to, take a moment to further educate yourself on dominant and recessive genes in alleles. Sometimes, the most horrific and crippling genetic traits can have recessive counterparts that not only provide a benefit to the individual, but potentially provide a wealth of knowledge for the science that unlocks the code. A classic example of this is with sickle-cell anemia. Only individuals with 2 sickle-cell genes suffer from the disease... but the same allele, in individuals with only one sickle cell gene, provides the individual with an immunity to malaria.

I'm sure this example is analogous throughout all of genetic science - and I feel we owe it to ourselves to learn what we can as the situations present themselves to us.

If we kill them - we learn nothing, and set ourselves up for failure tomorrow.