RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,607
Posts: 5,425,493
Members: 24,807
Currently online: 681
Newest member: Dixonn

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Deep Space Nine

Deep Space Nine What We Left Behind, we will always have here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 30 2014, 08:46 AM   #1
Kobayshi Maru
Commander
 
Kobayshi Maru's Avatar
 
Time's Orphan:

I am a bit troubled by the logic applied in this episode. O'Brien, because of a glitch in the time portal, pulls his daughter from the past, ten years too late. So she's in fact a young adult with the mind of a little child. She's obviously suffered from solitude for a decade, she's stunted and condemned to live the life of a misfit, who'll be regarded as bizarre by the rest of society. YET, O'Brien along with Keiko, decide NOT to attempt to get a her at an earlier stage, because it would "erase" ten years of her life!! Are you kidding me? O'Brien especially should have been more sensitive! He had twenty years of incarceration put in his mind and that nearly drove him to suicide! How can't he see that this is a similar situation.
It's takes another technical glitch to put things back the way they should have been and I find it troubling. That O'Brien never realized that that is what he should have tried from the start, IE give Molly her childhood back.
Kobayshi Maru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 06:54 PM   #2
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

From a humanist perspective, teenage Molly was a person who had a right to exist. Taking her life without giving her the choice would be murder, and placing greater value on one version of Molly than another version of Molly just because the other version is better adapted to society is anti-egalitarian.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 07:04 PM   #3
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Time's Orphan:

It's one of my least favorite episodes because it seems contrived. It's sort of a precursor to the moral ethics argument that shows up in Voyager with "Tuvix".
__________________
Curly: If at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' til you do succeed.
--Movie Maniacs (1936)
Melakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 07:07 PM   #4
Kobayshi Maru
Commander
 
Kobayshi Maru's Avatar
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
From a humanist perspective, teenage Molly was a person who had a right to exist. Taking her life without giving her the choice would be murder, and placing greater value on one version of Molly than another version of Molly just because the other version is better adapted to society is anti-egalitarian.
I disagree, when O'Brien had twenty years of incarceration ingrained in his brain. The first thing they tried is to remove them, which would have taken away twenty years of his existence (Virtual or real makes no difference). The same logic should apply to ten years of miserable existence for Molly, at least O'Brien had a friend to talk to during this time, Molly did not.

There's nothing egalitarian about applying two standards of treatment to two situations essentially similar.

This situation is even more similar than that. Imagine, if they had the power to remove O'Brien from Agratha (using time travel) before he was implanted with these memories, I bet they would have done it without hesitation.

You're still not seeing why these two cases are essentially the same?
Kobayshi Maru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 07:10 PM   #5
dub
Fleet Captain
 
dub's Avatar
 
Location: Location? What is this?
Re: Time's Orphan:

Melakon wrote: View Post
It's one of my least favorite episodes because it seems contrived. It's sort of a precursor to the moral ethics argument that shows up in Voyager with "Tuvix".
oh wow...I loved this episode. Made me shed tears.
dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 07:17 PM   #6
Kobayshi Maru
Commander
 
Kobayshi Maru's Avatar
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

Besides, there is something absurd about the ending. Both O'Brien and Keiko seemed happy and relieved that young Molly had returned. Not one second did they seem to regret that they had essentially killed old Molly. So what happened to all these scruples that made them go through all this in the first place? Not even one sentence of regrets about the Molly they tried to preserve.

No humanism there.
Kobayshi Maru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 07:33 PM   #7
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

They're similar, only O'Brien would have been given the choice whether to have the memories erased. Molly would not have been capable of understanding that choice, at least not for a while. At the end she made the choice to erase those years, and that was her decision.

Let me turn your comparison back at you, suppose they found a way to remove the memories of O'Brien's simulated incarceration, and he refused. Should they force the procedure on him?
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 08:59 PM   #8
Kobayshi Maru
Commander
 
Kobayshi Maru's Avatar
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
...They're similar, only Let me turn your comparison back at you, suppose they found a way to remove the memories of O'Brien's simulated incarceration, and he refused. Should they force the procedure on him?
The point is that he didn't refuse, he even took medication (as was said) to dim the memory. I guess if he could have dimmed it to nothing, he would have, without hesitation at that. If Molly could have understood in the state that she was, the life she was missing, likely forever, because of her terrible ordeal, no doubt she would have wanted out of it.

If a rape victim was offered the possibility to be in the exact state she was before the rape, do you think, she would say NO? I've met someone victim of terrorism, she was near an explosion in the subway. Fortunately, she was far enough to not suffer permanent physical injuries, but she suffered PTSD for years after that. I have no doubt that if she could just have the memory of the traumatic event erased from her mind, she would accept without hesitations.
Kobayshi Maru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 09:21 PM   #9
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

You're dodging the question. Yes, O'Brien if given the choice would have agreed to go back to his state of mind previous to the experience. But it doesn't change the fact that it would have been his informed choice.

It's not the place of the O'Briens to make the choice on behalf of Molly just because she's not currently capable of making an informed choice.

It's the same thing with terrorism victims. Yes, many would choose to reverse the timeline where they were terrorized, but it's still nobody's choice but theirs.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 09:34 PM   #10
Kobayshi Maru
Commander
 
Kobayshi Maru's Avatar
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post
You're dodging the question. Yes, O'Brien if given the choice would have agreed to go back to his state of mind previous to the experience. But it doesn't change the fact that it would have been his informed choice.

It's not the place of the O'Briens to make the choice on behalf of Molly just because she's not currently capable of making an informed choice.

It's the same thing with terrorism victims. Yes, many would choose to reverse the timeline where they were terrorized, but it's still nobody's choice but theirs.
But if you do nothing and let her in the state she's in, YOU DO MAKE a choice, you choose that life for her. Doing nothing is not neutral. It's no more neutral than let a victim of accident die instead of calling an ambulance.

The point is that Molly doesn't know enough to make an informed decision and that therefore someone else has to make the decision for her and if that someone bases his judgment on precedents, e.g. rape victims, terrorist victims... He'll decide to remove these years and let her live the good life she was destined to before the accident.
Kobayshi Maru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 10:02 PM   #11
DS9forever
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

Melakon wrote: View Post
It's one of my least favorite episodes because it seems contrived. It's sort of a precursor to the moral ethics argument that shows up in Voyager with "Tuvix".
Even though "Tuvix" was made years earlier?
DS9forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 30 2014, 10:24 PM   #12
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Time's Orphan:

I didn't check the airdates. But it still seems like a recycle, regardless which show did it first.
__________________
Curly: If at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin' til you do succeed.
--Movie Maniacs (1936)
Melakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2014, 03:44 AM   #13
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

Kobayshi Maru wrote: View Post
But if you do nothing and let her in the state she's in, YOU DO MAKE a choice, you choose that life for her. Doing nothing is not neutral. It's no more neutral than let a victim of accident die instead of calling an ambulance.
It's more like murdering somebody you don't like in order to give a heart transplant to somebody you like better.

The point is that Molly doesn't know enough to make an informed decision and that therefore someone else has to make the decision for her and if that someone bases his judgment on precedents, e.g. rape victims, terrorist victims... He'll decide to remove these years and let her live the good life she was destined to before the accident.
She was an intelligent person, after a couple months of education she could understand the choice. Hell, she DID understand what she was doing when she sent her previous self back.

Making the decision for her is playing God. Choosing one life's right to exist over another because you place greater value on that life.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 31 2014, 08:18 AM   #14
Kobayshi Maru
Commander
 
Kobayshi Maru's Avatar
 
Re: Time's Orphan:

[QUOTE=JirinPanthosa;9913408]
Kobayshi Maru wrote: View Post
...

It's more like murdering somebody you don't like in order to give a heart transplant to somebody you like better.
With that kind of logic we would never treat schizophrenia because it would be "killing" the schizophrenic personality.

We would never treat people with multiple personality disorder because it would be tantamount to "murder" said personality. We would let Norman Bates think that he's himself and his mother at the same time.

Welcome to the world of doing nothing and letting people suffer indefinitely!

She was an intelligent person, after a couple months of education she could understand the choice. Hell, she DID understand what she was doing when she sent her previous self back.

Making the decision for her is playing God. Choosing one life's right to exist over another because you place greater value on that life.
Yeah, and when she had finally understood what was going on, she decided to end her life, or more precisely, to erase ten years of misery that turned her into a misfit.

Too bad an innocent man got stabbed in the meantime and her parents avoided big trouble by a hair.

Your kind of "humanism" seems to occasion more harm than good, don't you think?

What if she was taken away and kept in a mental institution for the rest of her life, which could have been more than a hundred years given their advanced medicine. She would never ever even have the possibility to change anything. That would have been the most probable result of your "humanism" and O'Brien and Keiko's who didn't want to take the necessary step of fishing out the younger Molly when they had the chance.

What if they had got a very old Molly, almost decrepit? Would it have been OK then to try a second time? Or should they let that Old decrepit, animal like Molly live her last years as a monstrous curiosity, a medical case?

What if they had got a skeleton, a Molly dead for years? If we follow your logic they should just bury that skeleton and forget about it because trying a second time would erase the life of that skeleton (prior to her death)... Can you see the wrongness of your reasoning?

Last edited by Kobayshi Maru; July 31 2014 at 08:29 AM.
Kobayshi Maru is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.