Differences between the series and/or the movies:
- Thread starter Discofan
- Start date
Scientists destroy zygotes all the time. If the clones never had any brain activity, it is basically the same.
Must've missed that DS9 episode.
Sorry, I meant to say TNG...
TOS: McCoy constantly gripes at Kirk. (Although he apologizes for it in "The Corbomite Maneuver.)
I don't think we actually have any confirmation of either of these opinions.
IMO, DS9 probably operated under a mishmash of Federation and Bajoran rules which was worked out between Sisko and Kira/Odo early on. As long as everyone is clear on the situation, there's no particular reason why there even has to be one overarching set of rules which completely blocks out the other.
In general, I'd say most technical regulations regarding equipment, officers, docking procedures, etc, would be Federation, with rules for the general population being primarily Bajoran (because they do want to attract Bajoran citizens to the station, after all, and have them feel comfortable there). And even then, any time something uncomfortable for one side or the other came up, it always seemed that would simply lead to a Federation/Bajoran (read Sisko/Kira or Sisko/Odo) compromise (except where such a thing was politically impossible).
Remember how hard it was for Keiko to keep a secular school on the station? However, it was never forbidden to her by station law itself, only the Bajorans (obeying their Kai!) would shun her school. The Kai obviously had no say on whether the school could exist or on how it could function. That clearly shows that the station is under Federation law and not Bajoran law.
Not really. We have no idea if the Kai even has legal authority in the first place. Schools may fall more under the perview of the council of ministers. ETA: I'm pretty sure there were at least some references to the idea that the Kai shouldn't be involved in politics at all, though it apparently wasn't expressly forbidden? And the Vedek Assembly certainly was involved in politics.
Also, Winn wasn't Kai in that episode, she was a Vedek hoping to be chosen Kai, but the episode repeatedly states that her chances weren't good.
"You claim the Prophets as your personal constituency, Vedek Winn. I'm not convinced that's justified. Who do you speak for? An order that is barely listened to in your Assembly. So you come here looking for a more receptive audience. "
And the end of that episode suggests she never intended to close the school in the first place:
" It was all to get him [Bareil] here, wasn't it? The school, the protests, the bombing. You knew that would get him out of the monastery. You did it all to kill him, to stop him from becoming Kai."
Last edited:
Regarding whose laws apply on DS9, in Emmisary there was this:
QUARK: How could I possibly operate my establishment under Starfleet rules of conduct?
SISKO: This is still a Bajoran station. We're just here to administrate. You run honest games, you won't have any problems from me.
Which is not as clear as I'd like.
QUARK: How could I possibly operate my establishment under Starfleet rules of conduct?
SISKO: This is still a Bajoran station. We're just here to administrate. You run honest games, you won't have any problems from me.
Which is not as clear as I'd like.
For a while I've felt that the killing of the clones in "Up the Long Ladder" has a more relevant real-world analog in the medical ethics of end-of-life treatment and stopping life support in cases of brain death.
Kor
Except, it's not the same. It's the future, a nicer, softer, kinder future. In "The Wrath Of Khan", Carol Marcus is shocked at the idea of transplanting a microbe! That's light years away from killing a clone! They won't kill the Crystalline Entity, even though it has killed thousands of people and is likely to kill more if left to its own devices but somehow it's OK to kill an innocent clone? What kind of twisted logic allows those two things to happen in the same show?
The crystalline entity is a living sentient being. Unfinished clone is not.
In WRATH OF KHAN, Carol isn't opposed to transporting a microbe for the microbe's sake. She simply doesn't want to compromise her experiment by testing the Genesis device on anything less than a totally lifeless world. And she's mocking Captain Terrell's (ridiculous) suggestion that maybe they can compromise a little by transporting any stray microbes off-planet before the test. Because you can't prove that you've created life from lifelessness if the planet is already capable of harboring life.
She's not objecting on humanitarian grounds. She's just insisting on a sterile, uncontaminated test site.
That's your interpretation but it's definitely not mine. They never say anything about the experiment being voided by a not totally sterile environment. Plus they can kill any resident microbe easily if they wanted to. The problem is that for ethical reason Carol Marcus is unwilling to do so to ANY form of life, including a microbial one. Besides, why would they even suggest to transplant a microbe if killing it was an option? Carol Marcus is even unwilling to DISPLACE a microbe for reason's sake! For what reason could that possibly be if not for an ethical one????
The Crystalline entity is a killing monster that had killed thousands of people, the (almost finished) clone is not!!! Remember that they were fully grown!
They punished the woman who killed the killing monster but didn't even give a thought to Riker's cold, sickening, casual murder of an innocent!
Not exactly. According to both Saavik and David Marcus, it was his use of "protomatter" whatever that is, that compromised the experiment and provoked the ultimate self-destruction of the planet.
As for the microbes, they have them on them, their clothes, their secretions, the air they breathe out. Every minute, each of us expels millions of many sorts of microbes. Yet they beamed down the planet without any kind of environmental suit... So it doesn't seem like they saw it as much of a problem.
Honestly, that's not how I read that scene at all. It's not an ethical debate, just a procedural one. She asked for a lifeless planet, and Terrell is trying to fudge things by suggesting that maybe a microbe or two is no big deal. But, as she makes clear, she needs a totally lifeless planet to prove that the Genesis device can create life out of lifelessness, not a planet where microbial life is already a thing.
And Terrell probably suggested transporting any hypothetical microbes because, well, seeking out new life forms is kinda Starfleet's mission. Naturally his first choice is going to be to collect a sample of an alien microbe for science's sake, just like we've seen Starfleet landing parties collect biological specimens before.
That scene is all about proper scientific procedure, not the ethics of transporting biological specimens..
EDIT: And the "protomatter" thing wasn't established until the next movie, so it has nothing to do with the meaning of that dialogue in KHAN. In fact, as I recall, it's never established that Carol knew anything about the "shortcut" David took with the protomatter.
EDIT: And Saavik and company beamed down to the Genesis Planet AFTER the Genesis Device went off, light-years away from Ceti Alpha V. Khan set off the device to destroy the Enterprise. He wasn't trying to test it under controlled circumstances like Carol wanted to.
EDIT: Note that Chekov and Terrell ARE wearing environmental suits when they beam down to Ceti Alpha V (which is NOT the Genesis Planet) to see if it's a suitable site for Carol's big experiment.
Last edited:
I didn't say anything about "protomatter" to you. Could you please stay focused on which question is answered by which response. The response was to someone who talked about the microbes on the torpedo that don't appear before the next movie, hence my response was in context while your remark isn't.
As for the rest then I guess at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree because the discussion isn't going anywhere.
You might want to reel it in a bit.
Similar threads
