Up The Long Ladder

[Admiral Shran]

This argument treads very closely to the one that would prohibit pregnancy termination for rape victims.

That brings up another problem I have.

Trek here presents the case that it's okay to abandon children of rape (in a round about way) because people have a right to decide what happens to thier own bodies.

However, on VOY, everyone is led to believe that Seska impregnated herself with Chakotay's DNA against his will (in other words, she raped him). But, Chakotay eventually is persuaded to accept the child as his and fight to protect him. So, Trek there presents the case that it's not okay to abandon children or rape because it's not their fault.

So, which is it?

 

[DonIago]

The difference is that in the latter example Chakotay chose to accept the child, and in the former example Riker and Pulaski chose not to let their non-sentient clones reach maturity.

In both cases the characters are exercising their free will in regards to the outcome of their non-consensual "offspring" at the earliest opportunity.

I don't really think you're interpreting the episodes as intended, no offense.

 

[diankra]

As for the portrayal of the Irish...I never really had a problem with it. They weren't supposed to be modern 22nd century Irish...they were a back to nature movement, which there are dozens of examples of in history.
RAMA

But (ISTR) the writer, Melinda Snodgrass, did have a problem with an Irish-American producer turning her back-to-nature people into cliched Irish tinkers (and it went down very badly with my grew-up-in-Belfast girlfriend of the time, who was caught between disbelief and hysterical laughter while watching it...)

 

[Mojochi]

This argument treads very closely to the one that would prohibit pregnancy termination for rape victims.

That brings up another problem I have.

Trek here presents the case that it's okay to abandon children of rape (in a round about way) because people have a right to decide what happens to thier own bodies.

However, on VOY, everyone is led to believe that Seska impregnated herself with Chakotay's DNA against his will (in other words, she raped him). But, Chakotay eventually is persuaded to accept the child as his and fight to protect him. So, Trek there presents the case that it's not okay to abandon children or rape because it's not their fault.

So, which is it?

Are you asking me? Lol, just kidding

If I had to render a guess though, I'd say that the overall position of people living in the Federation, is likely more aligned with protecting personal liberties, than strictly adhering to rigid constructs that would overlook a person's right to not have their lives altered by such a violation perpetrated on them

I suppose it's entirely possible that this is only how I perceive it though, as it's akin to my way of thinking, but they don't really strike me as the "Every fertilized egg is sacred" kind of people. Just my opinion though

In both cases the characters are exercising their free will in regards to the outcome of their non-consensual "offspring" at the earliest opportunity

I agree. Two different violations of a person, & two different reactions to those different circumstances, by different individuals

I think Trek has never been afraid of purposely re-addressing similar subjects, in a different light, in order to show that life is hardly black & white.

 

[Admiral Shran]

^ I agree, life isn't black and white. Except that we (as the audience) are expected to see both Riker/Pulaski and Chakotay as correct when they can't both be so.

I think Riker and Pulaski were wrong and Chakotay was right. But that's just my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[DonIago]

...why are we expected to see them as correct? Frankly, the "infallible hero" archetype irks me more than anything else, and I don't believe that's what Star Trek was generally trying to portray....well, maybe with TNG (cheap shot)...

 

[Mojochi]

^Agreed. I think there have been plenty of times where the characters are just doing what's right for them in their situations. I'm not convinced that the audience is expected to see their behaviors as being infallible, or part of some overall moral construct that the show represents.

How could they even expect to do so, with different writers, producers, & characters from varied cultures? It's a dynamic collection of productions, & the last thing they could ever do is make absolute claims about rights & wrongs. They only offer stories wherein we interpret things according to who we are

 

[RAMA]

As for the portrayal of the Irish...I never really had a problem with it. They weren't supposed to be modern 22nd century Irish...they were a back to nature movement, which there are dozens of examples of in history.
RAMA

But (ISTR) the writer, Melinda Snodgrass, did have a problem with an Irish-American producer turning her back-to-nature people into cliched Irish tinkers (and it went down very badly with my grew-up-in-Belfast girlfriend of the time, who was caught between disbelief and hysterical laughter while watching it...)

Well a lot of people including writers are overly "PC". Again, as far as the episode stands, they were meant to be backwards, but they could have been other nationalities that were backwards, because they were specifically from a back to nature group. They were not portraying them as modern 22nd Irish. Everything we see about the Irish through O'Brien demonstrates that ST does not view irish as backwards for Christ sake.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

I think this episode was one of those early episodes where their attempt for a great episode dealing with a controversial issue fell a bit (or maybe a lot) short. I didn't like the episode for the reason that they did spend way too much time on the Irish farmers (and that girl Brenna - yuck).

While the issues on cloning are legitimate, I just could not take this episode seriously. Whenever Pulaski and Riker discussed their cells being cloned, it didn't seem like they were so much worried at the moral implications than they were simply grossed out.

It was humorous, but I didn't think that made the message fall flat at all...I may be on the minority about this...oh well.

RAMA

 

[diankra]

As for the portrayal of the Irish...I never really had a problem with it. They weren't supposed to be modern 22nd century Irish...they were a back to nature movement, which there are dozens of examples of in history.
RAMA

But (ISTR) the writer, Melinda Snodgrass, did have a problem with an Irish-American producer turning her back-to-nature people into cliched Irish tinkers (and it went down very badly with my grew-up-in-Belfast girlfriend of the time, who was caught between disbelief and hysterical laughter while watching it...)

Well a lot of people including writers are overly "PC". Again, as far as the episode stands, they were meant to be backwards, but they could have been other nationalities that were backwards, because they were specifically from a back to nature group. They were not portraying them as modern 22nd Irish. Everything we see about the Irish through O'Brien demonstrates that ST does not view irish as backwards for Christ sake.

RAMA

Oh definitely (but my first point was that Snodgrass didn't write them as Irish, just as back to nature, and the rewrite was a crass mistake).
My other-half of the time did find the Up the Long Ladder characters hilariously funny - lord knows what she'd have thought of Spirit Folk and Voyager's other Oirish episodes!

 

[Green Shirt]

Provided the clones weren't self-aware yet...and I'd assume they weren't...it would seem to be more akin to abortion than murder.

Just saying.

What's the difference between the two?


Just asking.

 

[DonIago]

Connotation, and possibly legal meaning.

If you say Riker & Pulaski murdered their clones without providing context, the average person who doesn't know the episode will assume the clones were walking/talking/thinking. If you say they aborted them, the average person will not make that assumption.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

I think it was one of the odd examples of reverse racism that Trek was prone to. I am sure the creators thought they were being diverse and inclusive, but I don't now why every time they presented a non-American culture on Trek they had to present it as something out of the 16th century. The Irish, the Sottish, the Indians. I simply find it difficult to believe that in a global 24th century civilization people held on so firmly to hammy stereotypes.

Scotty is Scottish and presented as a 23rd century engineer at the top of his game. O'brien in STNG was a transporter chief and Engineer, not a 16th century stereotype. The episode needed a reason why the two separated groups from the same ship were different, and wound up on a another planet. They had to make it hard for them to want to procreate!

RAMA

I was referring to groups like the Indians in Journey's End or Quint in Sub-Rosa. Groups that would have been more comfortable in the 17th century than the 24th.