It's time for one of life's most unanswerable questions, and an issue that most of us face on a day to day basis. Is genocide good or bad, or does it wholly depend on the situation at hand? Well, the Doctor lives by a strict rule of "words not war" but sometimes even he seemingly forgets to practise what he preaches. Remember how offended he was when Harriet Jones blew up the Sycorax ship in The Christmas Invasion, moments after he'd let their leader fall to his death? It can be confusing to say the very least. To all intents and purposes, though, the Doctor is portrayed as the ultimate hero. He appears out of nowhere to save the day and this usually involves him finding some common ground between two opposing forces who realise that they actually can live in peace and harmony without causing any unnecessary pain to either party. It's this ideology that has led audiences to believe that Doctor Who is "pro-life", in the generalised sense that it promotes a strong message about anti-killing. Because killing is wrong, kids, and you need a 2,000 year old Time Lord to tell you that. And then he stands and watches the Empress of the Racnoss and her millions of children die and that's not to mention the fact he was directly responsibly for the untimely destruction of his entire race (until The Day of the Doctor completely changed the pre-established mythology, of course, but let's not open that can of worms). So is Doctor Who only "pro-life" when it wants to be, and is the act of genocide only bad when it says it is, or is this all happening in a fictionalised universe where our titular character - who, as far as the narrative is concerned, is just as flawed and scared as the rest of us - faces impossible choices that make no relevant sense purely for dramatic effect? Discuss.