Riker terminating the clones in "Up the Long Ladder"
- Thread starter Kor
- Start date
All I know is that it's a controversial moment, probably more than it was intended to be. Just a way to wrap it up the story without any loose ends.
The way I think of it is that they weren't fully formed enough so that it was the right call. What he really should have done is vaporize whoever gave the OK to steal their DNA.
The way I think of it is that they weren't fully formed enough so that it was the right call. What he really should have done is vaporize whoever gave the OK to steal their DNA.
Old thread topics never die, they just fade away... and then come back again.
^Long may it continue
In the last thread about "up the long ladder" that I was involved in, I was more irked by Pulaski's behaviour than Riker's. He kills some clones.....meh, whatever
Pulaski on the other hand, informs the Bringloidi and the Mariposan's, that monogamous marriage must be abandoned for several years.
Saucy cow
In the last thread about "up the long ladder" that I was involved in, I was more irked by Pulaski's behaviour than Riker's. He kills some clones.....meh, whatever
Pulaski on the other hand, informs the Bringloidi and the Mariposan's, that monogamous marriage must be abandoned for several years.
Saucy cow
With the availibility of in vitro fertilization, why would monogamous marriage have to put to the side for any time period? With their existing ability to create clones, surely the medical technology to perform in vitro fertilizations would be within their grasp. And if not then Pulaski could provide the necassary instructional materials and equipment.
Or just give them some turkey basters.
There's some suggestion that Abortion is okay in the 24c (see: one of the suggestions proposed to Troi's mysterious child in "The Child"/Season 2 opener.)
It could be argued that the clones were not viable enough yet to be considered "a person" so an "abortion" was okay to perform. Since Riker and Pulaski were the genetic donors for the clone they arguably had the right to abort the clones.
It's a thin and slippery line but that's where I put it.
I don't think here or in "The Child" the show was really trying to make any abortion argument or analogue -or at least intentionally doing so or making any meaningful one- but The Child does suggest abortion is okay in the 24c. There may be some suggestion elsewhere in the franchise to support this. Or maybe even to contradict it.
Further, it could also be argued that the clones were not seen as sentient either by nature of being a clone or at their current stage of development. And there's plenty of times in Trek where sentience is seen as the line between a being having a right to life and not having one. For example. Data claims Spot isn't a sentient being (though in reality cats are sentient. Though not sapient. Trek melds and confuses the two a lot) and as such it's apparently okay for Data to "possess" Spot just as we do with pets. Similarly with Picard and Livingston (his fish) and every other pet we see.
So either the clones were not viable enough yet for abortion to still be legally okay or clones by their very nature are not considered sentient or simply weren't at that stage of development. In both cases the genetic donor having the right or freedom to abort their genetic offspring.
It could be argued that the clones were not viable enough yet to be considered "a person" so an "abortion" was okay to perform. Since Riker and Pulaski were the genetic donors for the clone they arguably had the right to abort the clones.
It's a thin and slippery line but that's where I put it.
I don't think here or in "The Child" the show was really trying to make any abortion argument or analogue -or at least intentionally doing so or making any meaningful one- but The Child does suggest abortion is okay in the 24c. There may be some suggestion elsewhere in the franchise to support this. Or maybe even to contradict it.
Further, it could also be argued that the clones were not seen as sentient either by nature of being a clone or at their current stage of development. And there's plenty of times in Trek where sentience is seen as the line between a being having a right to life and not having one. For example. Data claims Spot isn't a sentient being (though in reality cats are sentient. Though not sapient. Trek melds and confuses the two a lot) and as such it's apparently okay for Data to "possess" Spot just as we do with pets. Similarly with Picard and Livingston (his fish) and every other pet we see.
So either the clones were not viable enough yet for abortion to still be legally okay or clones by their very nature are not considered sentient or simply weren't at that stage of development. In both cases the genetic donor having the right or freedom to abort their genetic offspring.
With the availibility of in vitro fertilization, why would monogamous marriage have to put to the side for any time period? With their existing ability to create clones, surely the medical technology to perform in vitro fertilizations would be within their grasp. And if not then Pulaski could provide the necassary instructional materials and equipment.
Or just give them some turkey basters.
Or Pulaski is playing on the males of two civilizations that do not want to get along and provides them with a base point they might agree on. Sex sells, as they say.
Abortion is not about the life of the fetus, it's about a woman's right to decide about what's going on inside of her own body. Legally a man has no say about an abortion no matter who's abortion it is. A woman only has a say about abortions of fetuses growing inside her own body. Try as I may, I can't see any relation with that and the case of the clones. Riker has no more right to kill the clones than a person has a right to kill someone who's received one of their kidneys. You have a right to disagree with St dogma, especially since we know that ST dogma disagrees with itself all the time.
IrishNero
Commodore
I just watched this again a couple of days ago and that was a real WTF moment. Me --->
For some reason, that was a real head-turner this time around for me. I have been re-watching the series end-to-end and this moment really struck me as wrong. It was just completely inconsistent with everything Star Trek, or shall I say more inconsistent than most ST moments (I don't even want to get into the many occassions they ignored the Prime Directive, only to turn around and champion it later). I think it stood out for me because TNG seems to have the most Vanilla crew of the lot. It was uncharacteristic. However, if that kind of moment was going to happen with the TNG crew, it would be Riker.
In any case I think the violation of creating the clones of them is way worse than the rest of the episode suggests. I can't believe they continued to try and help the clone people after they illegally created clones of them.
I think this is my least favorite episode of the entire series honestly, including the crusher ghost story episode. The ending is so horrible, I wasn't rooting for either of these societies to survive...
I think this is my least favorite episode of the entire series honestly, including the crusher ghost story episode. The ending is so horrible, I wasn't rooting for either of these societies to survive...
I don't know, Bashir created a clone just to see whose clone a bunch of cells was supposed to create. It's rather insane, when you stop to think about it. Let's create a fully autonomous adult humanoid, just to help an investigation about a possible murder.
I guess you could look at it that way, but it sure did seem like she was genuinely suggesting it as being a necessity, and yes, it is a rather absurd notion. My guess is that the tv show writers just didn't know any better in 1989, and now the datedness of it is glaringly obviousOr Pulaski is playing on the males of two civilizations that do not want to get along and provides them with a base point they might agree on. Sex sells, as they say.With the availibility of in vitro fertilization, why would monogamous marriage have to put to the side for any time period? With their existing ability to create clones, surely the medical technology to perform in vitro fertilizations would be within their grasp. And if not then Pulaski could provide the necassary instructional materials and equipment.
Or just give them some turkey basters.
As for the dead horse... I've long ago put to bed fact that the clones were being constructed on a cellular level, (Unlike cloning into an embryo) hence why they look all gelatinous & whatnot. They aren't done. So they aren't people. Therefore, since it's not yet a functional being of any kind, then no life was destroyed
I discovered a long time ago that abortion debates tend to be pointless.
The two side in the issue are not arguing the same point, thus cannot have a proper argument. Pro-Choice is about the woman's right of choice. Pro-Life is the fetus's right to live. These are not the same issue. They talk past each other because they do not oppose each other's points, but just foster there own subject. This is way it isn't a useful topic to debate in high school or college except to show that point to the class. You rarely find an Anti-Choice or Anti-Life side to make either have a proper debate.
The two side in the issue are not arguing the same point, thus cannot have a proper argument. Pro-Choice is about the woman's right of choice. Pro-Life is the fetus's right to live. These are not the same issue. They talk past each other because they do not oppose each other's points, but just foster there own subject. This is way it isn't a useful topic to debate in high school or college except to show that point to the class. You rarely find an Anti-Choice or Anti-Life side to make either have a proper debate.
Leaving aside any debate about abortion, that the scene in the episode was intended to make a statement on the issue is entirely clear. Riker's dialogue - "We certainly have a right to exercise control over our own bodies" - as well as Pulaski's answering affirmation were lifted directly from the terms of controversy at the time.
Sorry, I was away at the time and didn't see that one.
I can understand the point about the clones not yet being developed enough. Perhaps they were just "vegetables" that would have to be "activated" somehow upon full development.
The prime minister regarded it as murder, while Riker responded by calling him a thief. Without bringing in real-world issues.... they were completely missing each others' points.
Kor
The prime minister calling it murder is a pretty skewed perspective though. Of course he's going to call it that. It's his colony's only way to continue existing. In fact, there is a possibility that he's even being more abstract in his claim, than just referring to the termination of those two particular clones. He might be saying Riker is killing them all, their colony. That does seem to be their overwhelming fear throughout the episode, that it's all going to go bad. Granger's final line in that scene is "We have a right to survive", implying that Riker has harmed their survival. In doing what he did, he condemns them all to extinction. From Granger's perspective Riker's murdering all of them
Similar threads
