What Would You Do? - Page 2

No, wow is shallow.
Killing one's own offspring ( unibomber was not a child) to effect saving the lives' of innocent victims is something a self centered self important person could never do, I understand that. It would be criminal to stand by and watch...aiding and abetting, and accomplice....especially if the means was there to eliminate the mass murderer, even if it required immediate action of shooting the bomber before they set off the bomb to kill innocent people. Allowing family members to murder is mo of the terr or ists.

It is unthinkable for any loving parent to turn against their child. But to have a blind allegiance that equals some kind of Mafia style code of silence that protects cold blooded murders and the like, well, that would take some serious pondering on my part.

Last summer there was a devastating drive by shooting of some gang against another that resulted in the deaths and injuries of innocent people living in the housing complex as they happened to be enjoying a get together on a fine summer day.

Wanting justice and breaking some kind of gang code, or parental code of silence for the whole community to be safe, well, that became the question. It took awhile for police to make an arrest, but really, I think most are glad they did.

In California, years ago, there was a serial pedophile and killer whose mother chose to kill the child victim that she inadvertently discovered, instead of saving him from his tormenter, her son. I am sure that would have been a deal breaker for me! Imagine, to protect her child she murdered someone else's!

GSD asks, Joan, do you have children? I am thinking, probably not? Fur babies, only.

Joan, you don't have to do the killing for this discussion! So, it is a bit Wow, to go that far. Maybe the worst needed to imagine is to see that legal justice was made available.

I am sure this mother had her reason's for being a hardliner with her kid. Hopefully, he'll learn what she wants him to learn. They did say when speaking to the authorities he feared his mother, more than them.

I never said I would not turn my child in or go any extreme short of murdering my child. Btw, a 40 son is still my child just grown into an adult.

None of that is pertinent to the discussion.
You have your opinion, I have mine, and never the two shall agree.

BTW, I don't have any 'fur babies'.

Vigilante justice at its finest, wow.

Another Wow, moment-- I got curious and looked up "pegger". I am trying to unring that bell, now... 😬😬😬

@Joan, lol, yeah, I think I knew that you'd disavow fur babies but I wrote it any way. It fits others without kids, more often than not. 😌

Vigilante... Figures you twist it to that. The refugee I knew who had to shoot and kill his own son didn't murder him, it was in defense of innocent victims and himself. So predictable to start doing the bs fabricating from what I said....sound like hellery and her lies made by twisting what Bernie actually said. Oh well, didn't expect anything else from you.
Bee, I have dogs, not 'fur babies'.

What if an extreme violence gene could be identified in a foetus, would you terminate?

All hypothetical.

Who?
Personally, I don't believe in designer babies.

I believe I have already read that there is a warrior gene. And also, psychopath genetic proof with brain scans as proof. Genetic counseling for other abnormalities already exist, such as Down's syndrome. Such realities and decisions are made every day.

While one does not usually profess that harmful consequences will exist among the populace with certain gene combinations, it was also noted the nurturing aspect, if positive, could counter the evil inherent within the genes. See: James Fallon