Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politics?

[Cepstrum]

Disclaimer: this is NOT a thread to discuss abortion. Please keep discussions of such issues to other forums. This is merely a specific question about Trek and its portrayal of modern-day controversies. Please keep your views on abortion, etc., away from the discussion. Thanks!

I recently watched TNG's "The Masterpiece Society" for the first time. I was shocked at what appeared to be a very thinly disguised anti-abortion message given by Geordi. I know most of Trek's producers are Left-leaning/Progressive (eg, Braga, Moore, and of course, Roddenberry). That is why it surprised me so.

One thing I like about Trek, and one reason why people of with highly divergent political views like it is, even though it sometimes was used a vehicle to push a certain ideology, it was usually carefully disguised and sufficiently so that people Left, Right, and center, as well as the religously devout and the irreligious and atheists can all come together to enjoy it.

Rarely would Trek overtly refer to an issue instead of disguising it in sci-fi and alien terms. I don't ever recall hearing explicit hot topics, such as abortion, gay rights, political/economic systems referred to directly.

The only topics they seemed willing to take an overt stance on were condemning capital punishment, genetic manipulation, cloning, and war-mongering. Even racism, which is almost universally disapproved of today, was only obliquely touched with respect to other species (ie, "speciesism"/xenophobia). Likewise, their position on gay rights was mixed. Certain episodes seemed to subtly condemn anti-gay bigotry, yet the mirror universe, bi-sexual Kira was made to look especially evil/twisted, as though her cruelty/sadism was part of her bi-sexuality.


So again, I'm NOT here to discuss any of the aforementioned topics. Rather, I'm asking two questions:

1. Did "The Masterpiece Society" contain a veiled anti-abortion message? And if so, why? That doesn't seem to fit with the generally progressive values pushed by Trek.

2. Did Trek do as I described and, except in a few cases on specific subjects, have such subtle messages that people of all political and religious persuasions could enjoy it at face value, if they happened to disagree with a view expressed obliquely on one of the series? Or did it essentially push no agenda at all, except for putting out quality entertainment and/or just a few issues, such as capital punishment, greed, genetic manipulation, cloning, etc., all of which are not very controversial (not many are in favor of greed, human cloning/genetic manipulation, and few modern nations even employ capital punishment — and in those that do and are free, such as the USA, it remains a controversial, rarely-used punishment, is outlawed in many states, and was only re-legalized in 1976. Regardless of one's views on it, it's not inconceivable that soon *all* First-World nations will cease using it.)

I suppose there might have been a few pro-environmental messages, but they were rather subtle. And when it was *not* subtle in STIV, it was almost laughable, along with the rest of the comedic movie.


I'm interested to hear feedback. Was Trek used as a vehicle for pushing a set of beliefs, or did it merely explore such topics in a disguised manner? And how did TNG's "The Masterpiece Society" end up with what was arguably a direct anti-abortion message? (or am I mistaken about it?)


Caveat: my knowledge of Trek is pretty much limited to the TNG-era shows. I've seen all the movies, but not recently or often. And I've heard references here to the UFP employing capital punishment during TOS for some strange violation.

 

[DevilEyes]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

I recently watched TNG's "The Masterpiece Society" for the first time. I was shocked at what appeared to be a very thinly disguised anti-abortion message given by Geordi. I know most of Trek's producers are Left-leaning/Progressive (eg, Braga, Moore, and of course, Roddenberry). That is why it surprised me so.

Uh, no. It was a very explicit message against the discrimination against disabled people. It condemned the idea that disabled people (such as those who are born blind) are 'defective' and do not have a place in a 'perfect' society. (Which is, at core, a belief that makes the guy from the Masterpiece society very close to the Nazi beliefs.)

This would also be a type of selective breeding, and we know that Trek isn't very friendly to eugenics.

Abortion issue is about the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body. What does this have to do with this? Has it occured to you that Geordie's parents might have decided that they wanted to have their child, even if he was going to be blind? Unless you assumed that every parent would want to abort a fetus that wasn't 'perfect', I don't understand how you made the leap from the notion that fetuses with birth 'defects' do not necessarily have to be aborted in order to purify the population, to the notion that nobody has the right to have an abortion if they decide to.

Likewise, their position on gay rights was mixed. Certain episodes seemed to subtly condemn anti-gay bigotry, yet the mirror universe, bi-sexual Kira was made to look especially evil/twisted, as though her cruelty/sadism was part of her bi-sexuality.

Arguably, Intendant Kira was twisted and cruel before someone came to the idea of making her bisexual. At the time of "Crossover", Nana Visitor claimed that the Intendant was not bisexual, that her falling in love with Major Kira was a sign of total narcissism and had nothing to do with sexuality. But then different writers made sequels to "Crossover" that got sillier and sillier, and the Intendant was shown having male and female slaves and kissing Ezri... But IMO, that had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with some of the writers' immaturity and trite fantasies of black leather, dominatixes and girl-on-girl action.

 

[Pauln6]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

Trek wasn't objective in its approach - look at the indignant, self-righteous procrastination in Angel One compared to the tongue in cheek tolerance of Ferengi attitudes.

I do think that the episode was intended to address the issue of the abortion of a disabled foetus because it will be disabled rather than abortion generally but there is still a double standard. Fed Meds can fix most birth defects in vetro or after birth - Geordi's problem was that his disability was incurable - so the Feds DO consider disability to be undesirable and inferior. I suppose you also have to put the whole issue in the context that 24th century contraception must be pretty good so it would be understandable if the Feds were a bit dismissive of a society that considered the family planning issue after the event.

 

[Cepstrum]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

I recently watched TNG's "The Masterpiece Society" for the first time. I was shocked at what appeared to be a very thinly disguised anti-abortion message given by Geordi. I know most of Trek's producers are Left-leaning/Progressive (eg, Braga, Moore, and of course, Roddenberry). That is why it surprised me so.

Uh, no. It was a very explicit message against the discrimination against disabled people. It condemned the idea that disabled people (such as those who are born blind) are 'defective' and do not have a place in a 'perfect' society. (Which is, at core, a belief that makes the guy from the Masterpiece society very close to the Nazi beliefs.)

This would also be a type of selective breeding, and we know that Trek isn't very friendly to eugenics.

Abortion issue is about the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body. What does this have to do with this? Has it occured to you that Geordie's parents might have decided that they wanted to have their child, even if he was going to be blind? Unless you assumed that every parent would want to abort a fetus that wasn't 'perfect', I don't understand how you made the leap from the notion that fetuses with birth 'defects' do not necessarily have to be aborted in order to purify the population, to the notion that nobody has the right to have an abortion if they decide to.

Likewise, their position on gay rights was mixed. Certain episodes seemed to subtly condemn anti-gay bigotry, yet the mirror universe, bi-sexual Kira was made to look especially evil/twisted, as though her cruelty/sadism was part of her bi-sexuality.

Arguably, Intendant Kira was twisted and cruel before someone came to the idea of making her bisexual. At the time of "Crossover", Nana Visitor claimed that the Intendant was not bisexual, that her falling in love with Major Kira was a sign of total narcissism and had nothing to do with sexuality. But then different writers made sequels to "Crossover" that got sillier and sillier, and the Intendant was shown having male and female slaves and kissing Ezri... But IMO, that had nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with some of the writers' immaturity and trite fantasies of black leather, dominatixes and girl-on-girl action.

Thanks, DevilEyes, for offering your insight. You filled in some useful info for me. I think, however, I miscommunicated what I meant about the notion that "The Masterpiece Society" might have inadvertantly delivered an anti-abortion message.

You're right, of course, that the clear intention of that episode was to illustrate the results of implementing a total eugenics system. I just found Geordi's conversation to be out of place for that, for he seemed to imply that had he been conceived in that society, the rulers would have forced his mother to abort the pregancy. It seemed to not fit with the tone of condemning a forced eugenics system.

One reason I asked the question about abortion, DE, was to see whether I was misinterpreting it. I did not try to project any view onto it, which is why I asked. And I am not desirious to condemn or support abortion at all — I just found it odd that I *thought* Geordi's statements about him not being born there could possibly have an abortion connotation. But I also see, as you pointed out, that the system they were practicing was genetic manipulation via a eugenics breeding program. But if that were so, how would they handle cases of people such as Geordi with congenital defects without either aborting the fetus or being able to fix it before it's born? Even if the parents have excellent genes, there is still the possibility for something to go wrong in the pregnancy. So I suppose I thought Geordi was implying that, because he be unwanted in that society, they would've either had abort the pregancy or exile him.

I apologize for appearing to project any view point. I really had no intention of that at all. I merely was wondering if there was an inadvertantly counterintuitive message put forth in the episode. I'm not at all trying to denigrate the right of a female to terminate her pregnancy (or affirming it). I'm not a woman, after all

So I'm not suggesting anything about abortion rights in the UFP. I'm just wondering, if, as you noted, that society was practicing almost Nazi-like eugenics what they would with a "defective" person such as Geordi.

You asked whether it occured to me that Geordi's parents would still want him even if he were blind. I never questioned that. I think the fact that he's around suggests that his parents wanted to have him regardless of his visual disability.

I agree with you that Intendent Kira got rather silly over the course of the MU arc. I was just wondering why the first (and only?) bi-sexual character in Trek would be portrayed as such an evil villian. It seemed out of place/odd to me. *But*, I was *not* aware that she wasn't always portrayed like that. I'm not a fan of the MU episodes, so it's been a while since I've seen the early DS9 ones. Thanks for correcting me on that.

Again, I apologize for not making myself clearer. I in no way intended to convey that parents would always want to abort an imperfect fetus. I just wondered how the Masterpiece Society's laws for genetic "perfection" would deal with a case like Geordi's. And the reason I thought of that was because in the episode it seemed to go out of its way to have Geordi obliquely discuss that very issue.

 

[Cepstrum]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

Trek wasn't objective in its approach - look at the indignant, self-righteous procrastination in Angel One compared to the tongue in cheek tolerance of Ferengi attitudes.

I do think that the episode was intended to address the issue of the abortion of a disabled foetus because it will be disabled rather than abortion generally but there is still a double standard. Fed Meds can fix most birth defects in vetro or after birth - Geordi's problem was that his disability was incurable - so the Feds DO consider disability to be undesirable and inferior. I suppose you also have to put the whole issue in the context that 24th century contraception must be pretty good so it would be understandable if the Feds were a bit dismissive of a society that considered the family planning issue after the event.

Thanks, Praxius, for your help.

I see that you also got the notion that abortion was subtly referred to in that episode. But I don't think it addressed the UFP's abortion-rights policy or the view of it held by UFP citizens. I think it was only addressing it in the context of that one, genetically-manipulated society. And it *seemed* to me that the insertion of Geordi's conversation was specifically set up to touch upon that issue, which I found odd.

I still haven't been able to watch "Angel One", only read synopses of it.


I must say, however, that I don't quite understand how to interpret your statements about abortion, the UFP, and 24th century medicine. I didn't think "The Masterpiece Society" addressed those.

Though in VOY's "Lineage", it was made clear the Doctor could easily alter B'Elanna and Tom's fetus to correct a birth defect. It then proceeded to show that even a non-medically trained person (B'Elanna) could herself easily alter the genetic makeup of her child. And that, curiously, wasn't condemned per se because of genetic manipulation but rather because she wanted to erase all Klingon genes from her baby, which Tom did not want her to do.

 

[Pauln6]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

I must say, however, that I don't quite understand how to interpret your statements about abortion, the UFP, and 24th century medicine. I didn't think "The Masterpiece Society" addressed those.

I was talking more generally. They make a big thing out of saying that Geordi's blindness was incurable except using technology. Since we see few other disabled people, the implication is either that disability is corrected wherever possible or is avoided through manipulation. So some Federation citizens could abort disabled foetuses, or screen eggs or sperm or foetuses. Or does their distaste for genetic manipulation mean that they generally refuse to screen and/or correct genetic abnormalities and they just keep their disabled children in a cupboard somewhere? Whatever their reasons, disability is still viewed negatively, as something to be overcome or eradicated. The closest they came was in DS9 where the low grav alien decided to stay as she was - a typical Trek allegory but we never see any 'disabled' aliens ever again.

The offer to genetically engineer Tom's child is odd - especially as the Doctor would be programmed to understand the medical ethics of the Federation.

As an aside, Levar Burton hated that visor and wanted to move to 'bionic eyes' much sooner. He was dissuaded because blind people saw him as a role model and curing his blindness would have removed that key element of his character.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

I recently watched TNG's "The Masterpiece Society" for the first time. I was shocked at what appeared to be a very thinly disguised anti-abortion message given by Geordi. I know most of Trek's producers are Left-leaning/Progressive (eg, Braga, Moore, and of course, Roddenberry). That is why it surprised me so.

Uh, no. It was a very explicit message against the discrimination against disabled people. It condemned the idea that disabled people (such as those who are born blind) are 'defective' and do not have a place in a 'perfect' society. (Which is, at core, a belief that makes the guy from the Masterpiece society very close to the Nazi beliefs.)

This would also be a type of selective breeding, and we know that Trek isn't very friendly to eugenics.

Abortion issue is about the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body. What does this have to do with this?

DevilEyes...you might want to read up on Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It's pretty scary--but I'd say it answers your question.

Basically, Cepstrum, I'd say you stumbled on a most disturbing connection that most people--including, I'd guess, the TNG writers--don't even realize exist. You actually hit a mark, albiet with a blind shot in the dark. Kudos, my friend.

 

[Myasishchev]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

I must say, however, that I don't quite understand how to interpret your statements about abortion, the UFP, and 24th century medicine. I didn't think "The Masterpiece Society" addressed those.

I was talking more generally. They make a big thing out of saying that Geordi's blindness was incurable except using technology. Since we see few other disabled people, the implication is either that disability is corrected wherever possible or is avoided through manipulation. So some Federation citizens could abort disabled foetuses, or screen eggs or sperm or foetuses. Or does their distaste for genetic manipulation mean that they generally refuse to screen and/or correct genetic abnormalities and they just keep their disabled children in a cupboard somewhere? Whatever their reasons, disability is still viewed negatively, as something to be overcome or eradicated. The closest they came was in DS9 where the low grav alien decided to stay as she was - a typical Trek allegory but we never see any 'disabled' aliens ever again.

The offer to genetically engineer Tom's child is odd - especially as the Doctor would be programmed to understand the medical ethics of the Federation.

As an aside, Levar Burton hated that visor and wanted to move to 'bionic eyes' much sooner. He was dissuaded because blind people saw him as a role model and curing his blindness would have removed that key element of his character.

While it's great that blind people had someone they could look up to and all, they're probably not appreciating the big picture.

Geordi was not blind. He was a cyborg who could see gamma rays and smell dark matter. He was only blind when his headgear was removed, which makes him more of a hero for people with glasses than the non-sighted, really--and, like Geordi, they're neither particularly disabled nor need special pandering.

Anyway, the only thing that's particularly off-putting about requiring an abortion in the case of disabled children is the bodily integrity and liberty interests of the mother, which are generally considered to outweigh virtually all other competing interests, including public health in the case of a profoundly disabled child or even the father's wishes, despite his substantial legal and economic obligations. The only interest I know of (in the US) that trumps it is, depending on the state, parents' wishes when the mother is a minor--which is a different kettle of fish and a constitutionally related but distinct body of law. And even then they can simply prohibit, not force their child to commit an affirmative act.

Of course nothing in any decent law that I can think of that prevents the advocation of abortion of disabled fetuses, or the persuasion of prospective mothers to cut their losses and start over (or to abstain as the case may be). Nor is there anything, that I can see, at all unethical about that--if we accept abortion for other utilitarian purposes, why not for the purpose of wiping out debilitative genetic disease? Why should "I won't be a good mother" sound better than "I won't be a good mother to my mentally retarded son?" or even "I can't be a good mother because any child I conceive has a 50% chance of being a harlequin baby"? Without begrudging any extant human being the right to life, the Masterpiece Society and its members--who all live precariously and unnaturally in a plastic bubble, mind you--should be and presumably are free to hold the view that they do not particularly want disabled children. After all, soft eugenics is nothing to be afraid of--like with the swastika and sweet Hugo Boss uniforms, the fucking Nazis ruined the concept for everybody.

With that in mind, we can just as easily assume Geordi is basically being a great big giant cock and decrying the exercise of other people's reproductive rights. Star Trek does that a lot when it comes to genetic engineering.

Christ, they might not even use women to gestate festuses. They could just as easily grow them sterile in artificial wombs, and when anybody wants a kid, they have to solemnly contract for it instead of just blowing a load in the right place at the right time. In which case abortion doesn't even enter into it--they just don't build blind people. In which case Geordi is more than a cock, he's a militant cognitive diversity advocate of the most dangerous and morally repugnant kind, who thinks blindness offers some sort of intangible value in itself. (Of course, maybe it does when you get to rock a VISOR.)

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

1. Did "The Masterpiece Society" contain a veiled anti-abortion message? And if so, why? That doesn't seem to fit with the generally progressive values pushed by Trek.

LaForge's comment to Hannah Bates (after he briefly removes his visor) that he recognizes that in the philosophy of the colony, he would have been a abortion candidate. LaForge sounds like he's generally condemning the very philosophy of right to choose

LAFORGE: Who gave them the right to decide whether or not I should be here? Whether or not I might have something to contribute.

Good examples of different positions Star Trek takes concerning abortion would be the two episodes Up The Long Ladder and Unexpected. Unexpected shows a newly pregnant Commander Tucker, who very much does not wish to be (the child isn't his biologically), Tucker had this to say ...

TUCKER: There's got to be some way to get this thing out of me without hurting it. Can't you create a surrogate chamber or something?

The impression is that if nothing can be done, Tucker would carry the Xyrillian baby through to birth. As was noted at the time, a very pro life episode. At no point did Tucker attempt to end the child's life.

The opposite position was in Up The Long Ladder, after they were both cloned without their consent, Riker and Pulaski discover the clones growing in tubes. With no effort to rescue/remove the clones back to the Enterprise, Riker (with Pulaski's permission) kills both developing clones with his phaser. Unlike Tucker, Riker and Pulaski show no respect for the new life, while neither was carrying, their did make the choice to end their "off-springs" life's.

-------

I always thought the main problem with Angel One was the lack of subtlety, if what had been shown had been a sexual role-reversal, without the adorable costumes and the undersized males, the entire episode would have been better. Maybe TPTB thought their audience were too dense to "get it."

don't think it addressed the UFP's abortion-rights policy or the view of it held by UFP citizens

I would imagine the UFP citizen views are completely across the spectrum on the matter, given the likely diversity of cultural beliefs. The UFP's abortion-rights policy is a tougher question, with their ethical philosphy, how would they balance the rights of the parent and the rights of the offspring. Or the parent's versus the offspring's.

Tucker's suggestion of a surrogate chamber, or perhaps a hired surrogate mother the unborn child could be transferred too would be a socially acceptable solution. Like the way the O'Brien child was transferred to Colonel Kira.

 

[Myasishchev]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

I'm trying to remember if Sisko asked Yates, or not, whether she was going to keep their kid when he knocked her up (most irresponsibly).

Did any of the newer novels featuring Andorians discuss abortion? If they're supposed to be marsupialish, that'd add a whole new element of body horror to an already unpleasant situation. I mean, it's bad enough seeing a constrained, obviously unconscious humanoid fetus and smashing it; I wonder how crawling, nursing, but equally un-sapient, fetuses would affect reproductive mores. If nothing else, they might be able to dodge.

 

[Cepstrum]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

RushLimborg and T'Girl, thanks for your responses (and to the rest of you, too).

You seemed to suggest that TMPS, as well as a few other episodes, were anti-abortion. Again, I really don't want to start a discussion arguing about abortion. But how do you account for such messages getting across? Were they intentional? Inadvertant? I'm surprised that (a) they would insert anti-abortion messages/themes and (b) even bring that touchy subject up. There are many topics Trek stays away from. So why, given the progressive values of the producers, are these here?

That line by Tucker, which I'd forgotten about, made it appear as though aborting the pregnancy was "inconceivable" (sorry for the pun).

I'm confused. What's going on?

 

[Shatnertage]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

T'Girl said:

The opposite position was in Up The Long Ladder, after they were both cloned without their consent, Riker and Pulaski discover the clones growing in tubes. With no effort to rescue/remove the clones back to the Enterprise, Riker (with Pulaski's permission) kills both developing clones with his phaser. Unlike Tucker, Riker and Pulaski show no respect for the new life, while neither was carrying, their did make the choice to end their "off-springs" life's.

Which was exactly the point I wanted to make. I find that part of an otherwise lighthearted episode pretty disturbing. But in "Parallels" Riker and Worf also acted to destroy a parallel Riker and Worf, though to be fair if they hadn't, cosmic chaos would have ensued. Same thing? Who knows?

Moving from abortion to infanticide, I can think of two cases from Trek.

1. ENT "The Council" Degra tells Archer that it's rumored that Dolim murdered his son because he had a birth defect. It's meant to paint the character as sinister and ruthless, and is clearly a no-no.

2. VOY "Threshold" One of my wife's biggest problems with the ep is that, "they left their own babies to die on that planet." She makes a good point. By leaving three newborns unattended, you're doing just that. Whether they were salamanders or not, those infants were Paris and Janeway's offspring. Leaving them behind was tantamount to infanticide. Granted, this is not the biggest flaw in a trainwreck of an episode, but it bugs me.

 

[DevilEyes]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

From what we've seen in ENT, abortion is a moot issue on the 22nd century Earth (and therefore presumably in the 24th century, as well), because a pregnant woman can simply have her fetus removed and grown in an incubator, if that's what she wants to do (regardless of whether she wants to subsequently keep the child or to give it away). There is therefore no need to end the fetus' life for the reason that the pro-choice movement is built on (and, if I am not mistaken, the reason why abortion is legal in so many countries today, in the first place).

The only reason to end the fetus' life in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century would, therefore, be because someone decided that the baby's life is not worth preserving - whether because it is 'defective' or because of overpopulation or whatever. Somehow I have a hard time imagining such laws existing in the Federation, and it hypothetically exist, I wonder who makes those decisions? The parents? A special commission appointed by the state?

But, since 24th century science presumably can and is allowed a genetic resequencing in some cases (as seen on VOY "Lineage"), the real question is in which cases is the genetic manipulation of the fetus allowed. I presume that it's not allowed in order to change baby's appearance at will (like B'Elanna wanted to) or change their sex or or try to make them into genetically engineered 'supermen'... However, it seems that it's allowed in cases of at least some defects and congenital diseases. But which ones? Is it only those that will endanger the child's life in some way? Does it extend to such disabilities as blindness? Why would it be allowed to correct Miral's spine curvature, but not Geordi's blindness? (His parents might have opted to not temper with his DNA, but the fact that Geordi doesn't even mention the possibility suggests that it didn't exist.) A possible in-universe explanation is that the science had progressed in the decades between Geordie's conception and that of Miral Paris.

 

[T'Girl]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

But how do you account for such messages getting across? Were they intentional?

I get the feeling that Up The Long Ladder wasn't really thought through. On reflection, you could have built an entire episode upon just that one short scene, the ethics and the consequences of Riker's decision.

That line by Tucker, which I'd forgotten about, made it appear as though aborting the pregnancy was "inconceivable"

Inconceivable for Trip anyway, kind of hard to say what Phlox's position would have been, his ethics took some strange directions.

in "Parallels" Riker and Worf also acted to destroy a parallel Riker and Worf, though to be fair if they hadn't, cosmic chaos would have ensued. Same thing? Who knows?

The parallel Riker and Worf were I believe firing upon a Enterprise shuttle carrying Worf, Riker's fire was in response and justified.

2. VOY "Threshold" One of my wife's biggest problems with the ep is that, "they left their own babies to die on that planet." She makes a good point. By leaving three newborns unattended, you're doing just that. Whether they were salamanders or not, those infants were Paris and Janeway's offspring. Leaving them behind was tantamount to infanticide. Granted, this is not the biggest flaw in a trainwreck of an episode, but it bugs me.

This. Every time I see this episode I'm struck by this, you don't just "leave your children in the woods." Even on Earth, baby reptiles are feed and cared for weeks or months by their mothers until they reach a certain age and size. Janeway and Paris should have taken the salamanders back to Voyager with them. Turned a unused cabin or cargo bay into a terrarium.

Going back to Up The Long Ladder, the same thing should have happen with Riker's and Pulaski's clones, the "growth tubes" could have been taken to the Enterprise or the tubes watched over until the clones "hatched." There was no attempt at rescue.

 

[Myasishchev]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

From what we've seen in ENT, abortion is a moot issue on the 22nd century Earth (and therefore presumably in the 24th century, as well), because a pregnant woman can simply have her fetus removed and grown in an incubator, if that's what she wants to do (regardless of whether she wants to subsequently keep the child or to give it away). There is therefore no need to end the fetus' life for the reason that the pro-choice movement is built on (and, if I am not mistaken, the reason why abortion is legal in so many countries today, in the first place).

The only reason to end the fetus' life in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century would, therefore, be because someone decided that the baby's life is not worth preserving - whether because it is 'defective' or because of overpopulation or whatever. Somehow I have a hard time imagining such laws existing in the Federation, and it hypothetically exist, I wonder who makes those decisions? The parents? A special commission appointed by the state?

Isn't that what people do now? Most abortions are not performed to safeguard health (some are, of course); but I've never imagined that the driving reason behind the mother's decision to abort was nine months of inconvenience, but the desire not to create a life at all regardless of legal obligation to it, coupled with the appreciation that terminating those legal obligations is morally much harder once the child exists as a tangible object, and emotionally much harder once the child has had an opportunity to work its hormonal voodoo on the mother's brain.

I mean, we have a well-established adoption system in the States, but abortion exists, because the life of an abandonee is widely considered to kind of suck, and, consequently, when you wait so long as to give a child up for adoption, you're working harm on a living, sapient human being instead of a unfeeling fetus, and most people have a hard enough time harming a fetus. I presume that most abortions are sought because the mother, and perhaps other lobbies involved (father, parents, society), don't want a kid to exist at all. Some are sought because the child is defective, but that's an equally good reason equally protected under law.

Where do these incubator-children go? Are the parents dragooned into caring for them? Or are they forced to know that their child has been swept into the state orphanarium, never to be seen again, and trained to fight the Bugs in exchange for citizenship?

I get the feeling that Up The Long Ladder wasn't really thought through. On reflection, you could have built an entire episode upon just that one short scene, the ethics and the consequences of Riker's decision.

Clumsy, yes--I didn't even realize the clonekilling was supposed to be about abortion until someone pointed it out to me. Fully-grown humans are not exactly good stand-ins for three-month-old fetuses.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

Actually...if you look at the stats...you'd be VERY suprised at how many couples are willing and eager to adopt. The trouble is...there isn't enough supply to meet the demand.

 

[DevilEyes]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

From what we've seen in ENT, abortion is a moot issue on the 22nd century Earth (and therefore presumably in the 24th century, as well), because a pregnant woman can simply have her fetus removed and grown in an incubator, if that's what she wants to do (regardless of whether she wants to subsequently keep the child or to give it away). There is therefore no need to end the fetus' life for the reason that the pro-choice movement is built on (and, if I am not mistaken, the reason why abortion is legal in so many countries today, in the first place).

The only reason to end the fetus' life in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th century would, therefore, be because someone decided that the baby's life is not worth preserving - whether because it is 'defective' or because of overpopulation or whatever. Somehow I have a hard time imagining such laws existing in the Federation, and it hypothetically exist, I wonder who makes those decisions? The parents? A special commission appointed by the state?

Isn't that what people do now? Most abortions are not performed to safeguard health (some are, of course); but I've never imagined that the driving reason behind the mother's decision to abort was nine months of inconvenience, but the desire not to create a life at all regardless of legal obligation to it, coupled with the appreciation that terminating those legal obligations is morally much harder once the child exists as a tangible object, and emotionally much harder once the child has had an opportunity to work its hormonal voodoo on the mother's brain.

I mean, we have a well-established adoption system in the States, but abortion exists, because the life of an abandonee is widely considered to kind of suck, and, consequently, when you wait so long as to give a child up for adoption, you're working harm on a living, sapient human being instead of a unfeeling fetus, and most people have a hard enough time harming a fetus. I presume that most abortions are sought because the mother, and perhaps other lobbies involved (father, parents, society), don't want a kid to exist at all. Some are sought because the child is defective, but that's an equally good reason equally protected under law.

I don't. I presume it's because the mother isn't able to (because of her circumstances), or doesn't want to, or is scared of having to be responsible for the child (and I suspect that most abortions fall into category 1; adult, educated, well-off women tend to use contraception). Your view is very weird. Why the hell would anyone be against a kid existing at all? Or is that just a part of your agenda to portray women who have abortions as bloodthirsty murderers even though that has very little to do with real life?

Where do these incubator-children go? Are the parents dragooned into caring for them?

Why would they be? Nobody is forcing the parents to care for the children in real life, if they want to give them up for adoption. And social services/foster care, in some parts of the world at least, have come a long way in the last few decades. It stands to reason that they would be much more developed and better organized in the 24th century Federation, described as 'paradise' (of course, I don't believe that their society is perfect by any means - but we are supposed to think of it as far richer in resources, more advanced technologically and scientifically, with a much lower poverty and crime rates, and a much higher standard than any country has today).

Or are they forced to know that their child has been swept into the state orphanarium, never to be seen again, and trained to fight the Bugs in exchange for citizenship?

In the Mirror Universe? Quite possible. In the Federation, I'd assume that 1) everyone born in the Federation is automatically a citizen, and 2) with all that opulence and high standards of living that we keep hearing about in Trek, there should be no problem finding parents to adopt, or at least foster care, and that any 'orphanages' are hundreds of years (well, literally in this case) more advanced and better furnished (in material as well as personnel) than today. Apparently, even 6-year Klingon children can find Human parents willing to adopt them.

 

[Cepstrum]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

Thanks again for more insight and help.

But does anyone have an idea how these messages got into what is usually a rather progressive show?

The only thing I can of is that, save for Jeri Taylor, all the producers and showrunners were men. And though some stories were written by women such as DC Fontana, I believe all of the staff writers were men. It could be they just didn't think much about it. After all, despite the progressive values of Trek in general, there were more than a couple cases of sexism. It could be that what is seen as a women's issue was disregarded by the male producers, even unintentionally. Or perhaps they really did intend to put forward both rather explicit anti-abortion messages as well as implicit messages that abortion just no longer exists.

Given the myriad issues raised here, such as the notion that fetuses could simply be extracted and grown elsewhere, which was rejoined with the question of what to do with these kids, I'm surprised it was tackled at all.


There is perhaps one other explanation, though it was never mentioned: it could be that contraceptives have become so sophisticated that the couple actually has to take active steps to conceive (such as a reverse form of The Pill) that enables them to have children when they want. That way only children that are planned and wanted would be conceived at all, rendering abortion redundant: even affairs etc. wouldn't produce children because the couple are not taking the medicine — or whatever — needed to conceive.

The problem with that explanation is that conflicts with Picard being tricked into thinking he had a son. If active steps by both partners were needed, he would have known that it wouldn't have been possible to have a son (unless it's possible for someone to slip the medicine into his drink, eg).

 

[Myasishchev]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

I don't. I presume it's because the mother isn't able to (because of her circumstances), or doesn't want to, or is scared of having to be responsible for the child (and I suspect that most abortions fall into category 1; adult, educated, well-off women tend to use contraception). Your view is very weird. Why the hell would anyone be against a kid existing at all? Or is that just a part of your agenda to portray women who have abortions as bloodthirsty murderers even though that has very little to do with real life?

What did I say that made you imagine that I'm not pro-choice? Other than using language that accepts the reality that it is a nasty business, of course--but certainly no nastier than a heart surgeon's business, and probably less so.

I did mention that most people have a hard time "harming" a fetus (probably should've made those air quotes explicit in the original). This is true regardless of whether the act has a moral dimension; I was simply mentioning it. On the other hand, msot pro-lifers don't use terms like "reproductive rights" or "liberty interest."

Incidentally, the phrase you used, "life worth preserving," contains at least as much of a pro-life bias as anything I've said, since it implicitly contemplates a child as an extant life, distinguishable from the mother. You cannot preserve something which does not, yet, exist. And of course there's certainly no harm in not creating life (otherwise the directives from our major religions would be very different).

This is the gist of choice--and it is proper to choose for a child to not exist at all, which is the gist of abortion. Preventing a being from not existing at all avoids the problem of harm entirely and is a morally neutral act--and, perhaps, on occasion, a morally praiseworthy act. Whereas abandoning an extant child for adoption is a morally suspect act, often the least of possible evils. (I can imagine situations where it could be morally praiseworthy, but this is not the usual case.)

Where do these incubator-children go? Are the parents dragooned into caring for them?

Why would they be?

Because now they have an extant child who wants his or her mommy. It is morally blameworthy, in itself, to turn away from the child. In certain cases, it is best to do so regardless, because of extrinsic factors--economic, social, and emotional ones.

In the decadent Federation, there are far fewer factors which would make raising a child undesirable, from the child's point of view. There's pretty decent logic in the maxim that anyone who does not want a child should be forced to raise it, but unlike in the present day, where extrinsic factors militate against the raising of a child, in the Fed it's probably just going to come off as selfish.

Nobody is forcing the parents to care for the children in real life, if they want to give them up for adoption. And social services/foster care, in some parts of the world at least, have come a long way in the last few decades. It stands to reason that they would be much more developed and better organized in the 24th century Federation, described as 'paradise' (of course, I don't believe that their society is perfect by any means - but we are supposed to think of it as far richer in resources, more advanced technologically and scientifically, with a much lower poverty and crime rates, and a much higher standard than any country has today).

As you say, it's far richer, and the individuals are basically idly wealthy. How much of a jerk does one have to bring a child to term and abandon it despite no economic or social pressures militating against her raising the kid? Sure, maybe she's sixteen, maybe she just doesn't want the responsibility of a child, but this precisely the problem abortion is used to avoid. So abortion would presumably remain the go-to cure in the case of pregnancy, because as noted above it avoids the problem of harm. Adoption is a far less tidy solution, since it does cause a kind of harm, even if that harm is as intangible as "my biological mother didn't want me."

By no means do I mean to imply that adopted children are necessarily consigned to a life of emotional cripplehood. I'm just saying that this aspect has gotta suck.*

This is of course distinct from custodial arrangements in the case that parents physically separate, but not legally or (entirely) emotionally separate from their children, for example the parents are Starfleet officers and think that neither bringing their kid along nor one of them quitting Starfleet is a good idea. While these people may be jerks of a sort, what I'm talking about, specifically, is the total termination of parental rights that adoption entails.

*And not telling them is even worse! This is probably the most morally repugnant thing adoptive parents are capable of, because they think it's in the child's best interests. It is not, because no one likes accidentally fucking their own sister. Well, almost no one. Anyway, this should be a required disclosure. You could probably bundle it with the "Santa Claus isn't real" speech for added growing-up potential.

Or are they forced to know that their child has been swept into the state orphanarium, never to be seen again, and trained to fight the Bugs in exchange for citizenship?

In the Mirror Universe? Quite possible. In the Federation, I'd assume that 1) everyone born in the Federation is automatically a citizen,

Just a Starship Troopers reference.

and 2) with all that opulence and high standards of living that we keep hearing about in Trek, there should be no problem finding parents to adopt, or at least foster care, and that any 'orphanages' are hundreds of years (well, literally in this case) more advanced and better furnished (in material as well as personnel) than today. Apparently, even 6-year Klingon children can find Human parents willing to adopt them.

I think that's more in line with the Federation being largely comprised of generous people. I'm sure there are orphanages, but they'd be for, like, orphans, not abandonees.

What's really interesting is that--and this is clearly within Federation science's power--they could avoid the issue entirely by by reversibly ligating fallopian tubes (or vas deferens, or both), making an unintentional pregnancy absolutely impossible, and requiring an affirmative act to repair the "damage" and permit conception. We know this because they can do vastly more complex reversible sex reassignment surgery in an afternoon. Yet at least one guy--Sisko--relies on a ridiculously outdated monthly male birth control shot. What a maroon.

In any event, one would assume this is what the Masterpiece Society did, since they also have the power to do it, and it's ridiculously easier than post hoc abortion debates.

And before anyone gets belligerently self-righteous about maiming children by mangling their reproductive organs, I'll point out that infant male circumcision is legal across this globe. One hopes that's illegal in the Federation. (Also, since I've been misunderstood once already, I'll point out that this is not an anti-Semitic comment. It's a distressingly common practice amongst gentiles in America. Should be illegal whether it's for looks or for mitzvah, however.)

There is perhaps one other explanation, though it was never mentioned: it could be that contraceptives have become so sophisticated that the couple actually has to take active steps to conceive (such as a reverse form of The Pill) that enables them to have children when they want. That way only children that are planned and wanted would be conceived at all, rendering abortion redundant: even affairs etc. wouldn't produce children because the couple are not taking the medicine — or whatever — needed to conceive.

The problem with that explanation is that conflicts with Picard being tricked into thinking he had a son. If active steps by both partners were needed, he would have known that it wouldn't have been possible to have a son (unless it's possible for someone to slip the medicine into his drink, eg).

Oops, missed this. Yeah, it's weird, right? I can only assume that they thought the story potential in unplanned pregnancies was greater than the SFnal interest in a world where unplanned pregnancies were impossible (I would also suspect they try to ignore the contradictions their medical technology presents. I've considered starting a thread entitled Why Is There Aging and Death in Star Trek?, when it's somewhat obvious that they have at least partial solutions to these problems. Bizarrely, the nihilism of Dr. Crusher in "The Neutral Zone" really is the most coherent answer to this question.)

 

[Gaith]

Re: Was "Masterpiece Society" anti-abortion? And did Trek push politic

Was Trek used as a vehicle for pushing a set of beliefs, or did it merely explore such topics in a disguised manner? ... I've heard references here to the UFP employing capital punishment during TOS for some strange violation.

I recall a VOY ep about Seven that came down pretty hard on capital punishment.

"Who Watches the Watchers" also pushed atheism to a considerable degree, iirc.