Fathers rights still laughable in the 24th century?
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
That's the more interesting question.
Likely the one who raised him. However, if Riker had raised a child before the Nervala incident, now that would be awkward, even more so than his dad now having a second son. I mean which dad would you visit on the holidays? Probably the that one you had been, but that really sucks, since it was the one who went without seeing their family that really needs it more. That's the whole Tom Riker complex in a nutshell. He had his actual life stolen, family and all. That's gotta give you a sense of diminishment, that you are the lesser, even if that isn't true, & by all rights, you've paid the heftier price in consequences, & ought to be seen as just as valid the person you are as the other
A trombone. That's all Tom gets that could easily belong to both/either
Then you might find this interesting,
The original plan/idea was to kill off Will Riker, and keep "Tom" which would shake up the crew dynamics. Data would become first officer, and Tom would be a jr. officer.
I tried to imagine how the evolved society which can get by without money in TNG would avoid this issue in the OP. I think what would happen is the potential for the issue to happen would have been detected by the advanced technology and expert counselors would be dispatched to the couple, maybe even before they conceive the child
Hello fellow Trekians. Long time scotty, first time beamer...
Well, by the 24th Century I would hope that it's the Child's 'Human Rights' that are to be considered the most important in any case. The true measure of any society can be found in how they treat the most vulnerable. Such as children and the infirmed. 'Parents' are not on the list of the most vulnerable.
First thing to keep in mind is that in a free society people do have autonomy over their own bodies (with reasonable wide reaching exceptions). So since a baby is growing inside of a mother's body then she clearly does have more immediate rights (along with more immediate responsibilities) to protect the child/herself before giving birth.
Once born though neither father or mother have any inherent right to have a relationship with the child. They could both be "wastes of space" (a repugnant phrase, imo). After all if I don't want either my father or mother in my life then I don't have to. Since I am free to have consensual relationships with whomever I wish I don't even need a 'good' reason for it. No matter who may feel butt hurt about my choices.
Regardless of how much genetic material there is available to determine parentage, to figure that one is entitled just because one feels they have a Right to contact based on biology isn't just selfish and authoritarian, it's illogical. Personally, I also find that point of view anti-'Star Trek', but that's up to personal interpretation of what 'Star Trek' means to us individually.
The real question here should be:
Who get's to decide what is in the best interest of the child until the child has the facilities to decide for itself?
The obvious glib answer is whomever happens to be in the vicinity, but it's a complicated question and one I'd argue cannot be solved with an over arching legal policy. People have to make judgement calls in every specific case. And as we all know, people with the best intentions can still make mistakes and have biases. Even the best option taken can still cause 'damage' to peoples lives. That's life in any century.
When this sort of situation arises all involved have already been taken down an undesirable path. Though we must remember, at no fault of the child's. All a child needs is one consistent, emotionally intelligent person; whether it be a mother, father, grandparent, teacher, starship captain, etc. in their life to grow up well adjusted. If only we could all be so lucky and, not to mention, thankful when we see it happening without our personal involvement.
Frankly, there is a lot in this thread that I could unpack, but since we're in TNG and not TNZ it would be disingenuous and against the spirit of this forum for me to go much further.
To bring this back to actual Star Trek, I propose the Q as a third party to arbitrate these types of things. They are as close to omniscient and omnipotent we can get in that Universe. Seem to have plenty of time on their hands too. Plus, they really like judging Humanity for some reason. Something about it being dangerous and immature... hmmm... it was only when Picard ('all good things...') saw the paradox in his actions and feelings that he was able to mature, then move forward.
Thanks for reading all of that!
Well, by the 24th Century I would hope that it's the Child's 'Human Rights' that are to be considered the most important in any case. The true measure of any society can be found in how they treat the most vulnerable. Such as children and the infirmed. 'Parents' are not on the list of the most vulnerable.
First thing to keep in mind is that in a free society people do have autonomy over their own bodies (with reasonable wide reaching exceptions). So since a baby is growing inside of a mother's body then she clearly does have more immediate rights (along with more immediate responsibilities) to protect the child/herself before giving birth.
Once born though neither father or mother have any inherent right to have a relationship with the child. They could both be "wastes of space" (a repugnant phrase, imo). After all if I don't want either my father or mother in my life then I don't have to. Since I am free to have consensual relationships with whomever I wish I don't even need a 'good' reason for it. No matter who may feel butt hurt about my choices.
Regardless of how much genetic material there is available to determine parentage, to figure that one is entitled just because one feels they have a Right to contact based on biology isn't just selfish and authoritarian, it's illogical. Personally, I also find that point of view anti-'Star Trek', but that's up to personal interpretation of what 'Star Trek' means to us individually.
The real question here should be:
Who get's to decide what is in the best interest of the child until the child has the facilities to decide for itself?
The obvious glib answer is whomever happens to be in the vicinity, but it's a complicated question and one I'd argue cannot be solved with an over arching legal policy. People have to make judgement calls in every specific case. And as we all know, people with the best intentions can still make mistakes and have biases. Even the best option taken can still cause 'damage' to peoples lives. That's life in any century.
When this sort of situation arises all involved have already been taken down an undesirable path. Though we must remember, at no fault of the child's. All a child needs is one consistent, emotionally intelligent person; whether it be a mother, father, grandparent, teacher, starship captain, etc. in their life to grow up well adjusted. If only we could all be so lucky and, not to mention, thankful when we see it happening without our personal involvement.
Frankly, there is a lot in this thread that I could unpack, but since we're in TNG and not TNZ it would be disingenuous and against the spirit of this forum for me to go much further.
To bring this back to actual Star Trek, I propose the Q as a third party to arbitrate these types of things. They are as close to omniscient and omnipotent we can get in that Universe. Seem to have plenty of time on their hands too. Plus, they really like judging Humanity for some reason. Something about it being dangerous and immature... hmmm... it was only when Picard ('all good things...') saw the paradox in his actions and feelings that he was able to mature, then move forward.
Thanks for reading all of that!
Welcome to the board!
Thank you for the warm welcome!
The age of consent might be different in the Star Trek future. It might be 16, or 19, etc, but the parents are the best equipped to determine what is in the best interest of the child until that point. Unless there is abuse or neglect going on, no one is going to know or care for the child as much as the parents. This is fairly universal around the world and throughout history, as well as in the fictional universe of ST
So adoptive parents are no good? And Worf wasn't abusive but I wouldn't qualify him as knowing how to care for his bio son, Alexander, very well. He could have did a lot better.
Also, what does the age of consent have to do with anything? It's social construct often determined by arbitrary reasons.
Adoptive parents are fantastic. Worf wasn't the greatest father, but that doesn't mean someone else can take his child away from him. When Alexander was on the Enterprise, he was cared for, fed, socialized, and educated. He wasn't locked away in Worf's quarters and neglected. Likewise, when he was sent to live with his grandparents.
Age of consent is by no means an arbitrary social construct. Children are raised, taught to be responsible, educated, and at some point have gained the maturity to make informed decisions for themselves. This coincides with physical and mental development, which is anything but arbitrary. It may be slightly different for everyone, but choosing an age that is overall best suited for the greatest number of people makes the most sense. It would be irresponsible to legally allow, say, a 12 year old to make every decision for themselves. It would set that child up for failure.
I agree. Adoptive parents can be awesome and just as good at raising a child as any good bio parent. That was my point. Just because a parent shares DNA with a child doesn't mean they automatically care and do what's right. Too many times kids get put into terrible situations because of the assumption that bio-parents always do care the most. Not true.
The writers did a pretty bad job of integrating Alexander into the show and didn't make Worf look so hot. Feeding and educating your kid is bare minimum stuff though. You don't do that you go to jail. A parent really should do more. When Alexander shows up later in DS9 he's kind of a mess and Worf did really give him any guidance throughout his life. His parenting style seemed to just be yelling.
Choosing an overall age of consent doesn't make the most sense. Slight differences in law make huge differences in some peoples lives. Is it ok that some people fall through the cracks if it's only a small number? Case by case makes the most sense as we all mature physically and mentally at different rates. A 12 year old may not be at an age to make every decision, but they are old enough to know who they'd want to live with.
Family strife and custody isn't an easy or simple thing for anyone to go through. So why make sweeping laws that treat it as though it is?
The writers did a pretty bad job of integrating Alexander into the show and didn't make Worf look so hot. Feeding and educating your kid is bare minimum stuff though. You don't do that you go to jail. A parent really should do more. When Alexander shows up later in DS9 he's kind of a mess and Worf did really give him any guidance throughout his life. His parenting style seemed to just be yelling.
Choosing an overall age of consent doesn't make the most sense. Slight differences in law make huge differences in some peoples lives. Is it ok that some people fall through the cracks if it's only a small number? Case by case makes the most sense as we all mature physically and mentally at different rates. A 12 year old may not be at an age to make every decision, but they are old enough to know who they'd want to live with.
Family strife and custody isn't an easy or simple thing for anyone to go through. So why make sweeping laws that treat it as though it is?
Worf didn't really give him any guidance throughout his life. - typos (yah!)
Or make sure his birth control was up to date, in the 24th century a Starfleet officer accidentally getting a one night stand pregnant should never happen. Birth control between humans should have a 99.999999999% success rate, it might be different if a human has sex with an andorian.
Actually, I still am (though 'horrified' is too strong a word). That is, I don't mind identifying myself when making a purchase in most cases, but I do mind not having a choice in that matter - which would happen for example if they were to to abolish all cash. (In my country providing ID when purchasing something is not required, at least not for your daily 'ordinary' purchases).
You don't need an ID to make a purchase in the US, unless you are paying with a credit card, but even then, a cashier actually asking for your ID with a credit card is so rare, that I can't remember the last time it happened. It's been at least 10 years. I've traveled to most continental States and the experience is the same.
Similar threads
