Episode of the Week: 2x01 The Child

[Captrek]

R. Star wrote:

---

He's like fifteen or sixteen at the time. Even just leaving your kid on a starship alone for a "few weeks" is kinda irresponsible.

Why?

Last I checked Colleges aren't regularly sparing with Romulan warbirds and other random bad guys of the week either.

Last I checked, Seung-Hui Cho isn’t on the Enterprise.

The risk that Romulan warbirds present to a teenager on the Enterprise isn’t affected at all by whether or not his mother is on the ship.

[RAMA]

A couple of observations:

The title "The Child" comes from the original script, it wasn't changed for STNG.

Rape: OK, technically this is true from a human point of view, but from the alien intelligence point of view, it basically sees a biological "receptacle" that will allow it to satisfy it's curiosity, it's not actually acting in the classic "rape" sense as an act of violence and power. This context is extremely important. It's lack of a frame of reference for human protocol and law might well get it acquitted in a court of law if we were able to judge a non-corporeal lifeform in the first place.

Pro life: Well what would you expect from a generally progressive series? Oddly though, ST in general is pretty critical of most biological improvements or tinkering with humanity.

Wesley: He's an acting ensign on a ship full of responsible adult officers. He's doing something almost no cadet in the Academy gets to do: get hands on experience. Why would Beverly harm that unique chance? I doubt she would.

Plasma Plague: I actually liked this subplot...just because it showed some day-to-day science/medical operations that we hadn't seen much of up till that time.

Not a bad little episode, though the ending might have been more profound.

RAMA

[Jeyl]

RAMA wrote:

---

from the alien intelligence point of view, it basically sees a biological "receptacle" that will allow it to satisfy it's curiosity

Enough about Maurice Hurley. Can you please stick to talking about the alien entity please?

[R. Star]

Captrek wrote:

---

Why?

Last I checked, Seung-Hui Cho isn’t on the Enterprise.

The risk that Romulan warbirds present to a teenager on the Enterprise isn’t affected at all by whether or not his mother is on the ship.

So you'd be perfectly fine leaving your 15 year old kid alone with a few people you've just served with on a military base under threat of attack while you're posted back in the States just because he enjoys the experience there? That's pretty much what this is.

[Captrek]

R. Star wrote:

---

So you'd be perfectly fine leaving your 15 year old kid alone with a few people you've just served with on a military base under threat of attack while you're posted back in the States just because he enjoys the experience there? That's pretty much what this is.

If it weren’t a safe place, I don’t think I’d have moved my kid there in the first place. You’re arguing against families being on the Enterprise in the first place, not against allowing them to stay when the parents leave. The people who actually live in the universe under discussion consider the Enterprise to be a safe enough environment for children.

And it’s not “just because he enjoys” the experience.” Wesley’s interest in serving on the Enterprise isn’t hedonistic.

As for me, if my son were 18 and qualified to serve, I would certainly allow him to do so. I might or might not be comfortable with it, but if serving in the military or Starfleet is what he wants to do with his life, of course I would allow him to pursue it. Wesley is about 17 years old at this point—Memory Alpha places his birth in 2348 and S2 in 2365—and physical durability isn’t as much of a requirement on the Ent-D as it is in present-day armed forces, so the situation is basically the same.

[JirinPanthosa]

Meh. Not a particular fan of the Writer's Strike episode.

But how can you call it pro-choice or pro-life or anti-women?

How does one woman, making a choice to carry her own baby, have any political bearing whatsoever? Being pro-choice doesn't make you pro-abortion, and being pro-life doesn't make you pro-patriarchy. Plenty of women who believe in the right to have an abortion would choose not to have one themselves.

[R. Star]

Captrek wrote:

---

If it weren’t a safe place, I don’t think I’d have moved my kid there in the first place. You’re arguing against families being on the Enterprise in the first place, not against allowing them to stay when the parents leave. The people who actually live in the universe under discussion consider the Enterprise to be a safe enough environment for children.

And it’s not “just because he enjoys” the experience.” Wesley’s interest in serving on the Enterprise isn’t hedonistic.

As for me, if my son were 18 and qualified to serve, I would certainly allow him to do so. I might or might not be comfortable with it, but if serving in the military or Starfleet is what he wants to do with his life, of course I would allow him to pursue it. Wesley is about 17 years old at this point—Memory Alpha places his birth in 2348 and S2 in 2365—and physical durability isn’t as much of a requirement on the Ent-D as it is in present-day armed forces, so the situation is basically the same.

Oh because 17 is so much better. But the if your son was 18 argument is meaningless as it doesn't fit the premise of the question or situation. He's still legally a child no matter how you cut it.

Crusher did abandon Wesley, a legal child on the Enterprise, a place with known dangers. Season 2 had Romulans, Ferengi, and the Borg alone among antagonists for example. Utopia view of the future or not, that's an irresponsible position to put any civilians in, nonetheless leave your child in while you're sitting at a cozy desk job far behind the lines.

I always figured the families on ships thing faded away because of the danger and casualties taken among them. You see zero reference of them in Voyager, they fade quickly on DS9 and that's even a space station generally away from danger, and by the time the TNG movies come out the Enterprise E has no civilians. A good thought, but not realistic in a ship that's exploring the unknown. Columbus didn't take his family with him sailing to the New World for a damn good reason after all.

Either way, back to Crusher, leaving her kid on the ship was grossly irresponsible. But the issue just got shoved into the corner and no one talked about it because we don't want a main character to look bad, while keeping Roddenberry's Mary Sue version of himself around, even though it makes zero sense.

[Melakon]

Well the only way they could have done that was to fire Wheaton along with McFadden, and they didn't seem ready to do that. So Wesley stayed on board.

You're trying to put a moral choice on a production decision. Maybe you'd prefer that Beverly was in stasis in a bottom drawer in Sickbay somewhere during Season 2.

[Captrek]

Melakon wrote:

---

You're trying to put a moral choice on a production decision.

Even in-universe, his moral arguments are without merit. He is by his own admission relying on a legal technicality of 21st-century America.

[Melakon]

Captrek wrote:

---

He is by his own admission relying on a legal technicality of 21st-century America.

Which may not have applied during the 20th century when the series was produced, and may be completely irrelevant in 24th century legal matters.

[MikeS]

RAMA wrote:

---

Pro life: Well what would you expect from a generally progressive series? Oddly though, ST in general is pretty critical of most biological improvements or tinkering with humanity.

Pro-choice. World of difference.

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

Meh. Not a particular fan of the Writer's Strike episode.

But how can you call it pro-choice or pro-life or anti-women?

How does one woman, making a choice to carry her own baby, have any political bearing whatsoever? Being pro-choice doesn't make you pro-abortion, and being pro-life doesn't make you pro-patriarchy. Plenty of women who believe in the right to have an abortion would choose not to have one themselves.

It is clearly "pro-choice" because Deanna makes a choice and Picard ends the discussion. I never implied that pro-choice meant pro-abortion. Pro-choice means allowing the mother to choose. Let's rewrite those lines slightly;
Deanna: "Captain, do whatever you feel is necessary to study a new life-form, but know this: I'm not going to give birth to this creature."
Picard: "Then it seems that the discussion is over."
It still remains "pro-choice". Deanna makes the choice. That is the most important thing here and in a "pro-choice" belief.

[R. Star]

Given the dialogue in Nor the Battle the the Strong concerning Jake's age and being in 18 in a dangerous situation, and the fact that Wesley is constantly referred to as a boy or child throughout season two, it's safe to say the age of adulthood is still 18 among humans.

[heavy lids]

Jeyl wrote:

---

The Child.

Well, the day has finally come. It was inevitable since both Gene Roddenberry and Maurice Hurley were in charge of the major story developments of TNG, so here it is. The episode that hates women.

For starters, two of the three main female characters from Season One are now gone leaving Troi the only main reoccurring female character of the show. Incase you need a reminder, she's the only main cast member who doesn't wear a uniform. But the episode tries to sweep this under the rug by giving all the guys promotions which results in them taking over positions that at first were manned by female characters. We're already off to a great start.

Also, Troi gets raped. I'm sorry, but that's what happens here. An alien force enters and impregnates her while she is an unwilling participant. So, how does Maurice handle Deana and Pulaski when Troi sees her about it? Why, by going to the bar of course! Screw Sick Bay, screw alerting the Captain that one of his senior officers was violated by an unknown entity. The ship has a new bar! God, at least Nemesis got it right when she went directly to Sick Bay immediately after going through a 'psychic rape' attack.

And you gotta love that scene in the conference room where Troi is sitting AWAY from the rest of the crew when they're all discussing her pregnancy. It's not even until the very end when she finally chimes in to make the decision.

And here's another fun example at how this story hates the female gender.

That's right. Exactly like Deanna in every way.... except for the fact that it's male. WHY? Does this energy entity that lacks organic components carry a Y chromosome?

And I haven't even gotten to the cargo plot yet.

Someone has A LOT of free time. And after reading all of this, I feel like I just got done watching a news anchor trying to make a situation bigger than it really is. It's an episode of Star Trek. You act like Rush Limbaugh directed it.

[Lance]

Melakon wrote:

---

Well the only way they could have done that was to fire Wheaton along with McFadden, and they didn't seem ready to do that. So Wesley stayed on board.

You're trying to put a moral choice on a production decision. Maybe you'd prefer that Beverly was in stasis in a bottom drawer in Sickbay somewhere during Season 2.

A lesser series might simply have recast the Dr. Crusher part. McFadden should count herself lucky that they decided to write the character out, instead of simply replacing the actress and having The Child open with a scene where Wesley walks into sickbay and says "Hi Mom!" to a new Dr. Crusher.

[Dream]

Lance wrote:

---

A lesser series might simply have recast the Dr. Crusher part. McFadden should count herself lucky that they decided to write the character out, instead of simply replacing the actress

Or they could have you know... killed her off like Tasha.