Riker, a murderer?

[T'Girl]

They were lifeless masses of flesh.

Given how advanced they were, most likely not "lifeless."

They may have reached the point in development (equal to the 32nd week for a baby in the womb) where they would have begun to dream and would have spent 15 percent of the day awake.

He is exonerated of wrong doing by the presence of others in the room & the lack of any mention of it thereafter.

Just because a second person agrees with your wrong doing doesn't make it right. As for there being no later repercussions, Riker and Pulaski took the secret of their horrid evil acts to their graves.

 

[Ithekro]

The answer is simple: late 1980s.

At that time, clones were considered a bad thing. And cloning was something you were not suppose to do. From a writers standpoint, you have the characters find out they've had their DNA stolen to make illegal clones. The right thing to do is to prevent the use of the stolen DNA and destroy any clones before they are finished. That is how things were thought of back then.

By the 1990s, clones were not considered an evil thing, or even a wrong thing. It was just something that could be done. Some when you get a clone made, it is just another being that looks like you, and depending on the style of clone, might even be you (flash memory installed). The clone would be considered a lifeform.


It also might follow some of the shifts in thinking about abortion in the general public between the 80s and the 90s when the writers would be thinking about these things.

Could you do this episode now like that? Probably not. Not without questions being asked. By in 1988 or 1989?

 

[Mojochi]

Just because a second person agrees with your wrong doing doesn't make it right. As for there being no later repercussions, Riker and Pulaski took the secret of their horrid evil acts to their graves.

No they didn't. Right after, they're all in the briefing room or wherever & talking about sending investigation teams down to see if any other cloning of the crew was happening, so to put an end to that as well

They all are in agreement about the action he took, which leaves me to think since we know them to be fairly moral otherwise, that what they did didn't have ethical gray areas. I view it as another suspension of disbelief. We know they aren't usually bad, & we don't know that what they did here was undeniably bad. So we leave it as them being not bad

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

Riker who killed potentially sentient beings didn't raise any questions among his peers, yet the scientist who killed the crystalline entity, an unquestionably murdering, potential multi-murdering piece of murdering crap, is punished for her actions. Sometimes, I don't understand these people at all. The clones didn't kill anybody and likely weren't about to do so. They were killed just for being, the reason given by the Nazis for killing the Jews. BUT, the Crystalline entity that killed many times and was likely to kill again, despite the faulty reasoning behind keeping it alive, was off limits... Yeah, that makes sense!

 

[Trekker4747]

The crystalline entity, as explained in the episode, was simply feeding. There was never any evidence it was killing out of mallice or any sense of evil ir that it was aware it was killing sentient beings.

It's already been surmised ways Riker could get away with the killing, namely by likening it to abortion. Knowing what we know about 24th century morals and killing it's unlikely the clones were seen as living/sentient/viable beings. So destroying them was okay.

 

[Ghrakh]

The people in the growth chambers had been just a few cells taken from Riker and Pulaski only a short time before,

After being assaulted.

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

The crystalline entity, as explained in the episode, was simply feeding. There was never any evidence it was killing out of mallice or any sense of evil ir that it was aware it was killing sentient beings.
.

A virus doesn't kill you out of malice either... People should stop fighting Ebola... After all just like the entity, it's just trying to exist. It's just coincidence that its existence comes at the price of countless lives...

It's already been surmised ways Riker could get away with the killing, namely by likening it to abortion. Knowing what we know about 24th century morals and killing it's unlikely the clones were seen as living/sentient/viable beings. So destroying them was okay.

This has nothing to do with abortion. For one thing the clones are born adult and grow much faster than an fetus, from the looks of things the clones were hours away from sentience. It would be like killing the baby of a woman in labor, IE a murder. If you surmised that then you need to reexamine your surmising process, it's flawed.

 

[Mojochi]

The Crystalline Entity displayed intelligence

from the looks of things the clones were hours away from sentience.

I don't see it that way. From the picture I posted, they look like a gelatin glazed tofukey

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

A virus doesn't kill you out of malice either... People should stop fighting Ebola... After all just like the entity, it's just trying to exist. It's just coincidence that its existence comes at the price of countless lives...

That sounds like a bit from a David Cronenberg film.

 

[Ithekro]

In 1988, a clone made without consent would be something like identity theft. Until the clone wakes up, it was don't considered anything but the result of a theft. After it wakes up, it would probably have been considered alive and thus not phasered, though I wouldn't put it past a 1980s writer to just have Riker shoot a fully grown clone with not problem at that time.

25 years ago, that would have been on par with how clones were seen by the general public.

 

[Mojochi]

Yeah, the topic of clones back in the 80s was like some Invasion of The Body Snatchers horror

But generally speaking, it's conceivable that if it was never brought to life, then it was never alive, then it's not murder. It's not the same as prenatal human development in their example

 

[T'Girl]

The people in the growth chambers had been just a few cells taken from Riker and Pulaski only a short time before,

After being assaulted.

But not by the two clones, they were innocent of any assault.

So why kill them?

In 1988, a clone made without consent would be something like identity theft.

But the identity thief would not have been carried out by the clones.

Exactly why would Riker kill both clones, what would have been his motivation, why did he feel the need? It isn't clear if the Riker-clone would have possessed Riker's memories and personality. Possibly he simply would have only looked like Riker.

Where would the harm have come in, in both of them living? As I posted before, yes remove them from the planet (at some point). This would deign the people who assaulted and "identity thief'ed" Riker and Pulaski the gains of their activities.

Why not let them continue to live?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

If the clones were not developed enough to live on their own outside of the growth chambers would killing them be any different than performing an abortion on a fetus not able to survive outside the womb?

I think "outside of the womb" is the key there to keep in mind, though. There isn't the same competing interest as there is with the burden on a person of carrying a child to term (or the burden of having to become a parent when one isn't ready). To me, it felt like they took a side in a debate without understanding what that side argues in the debate.

I think you're wrong. It's not equivalent to abortion; it's more like a sperm donor who would kill his child inside a woman's womb because he didn't like the idea of THAT woman carrying his child. That sperm donor would be charged with murder and so should Riker.

Well, it depends on the state, but probably not murder. More likely some other charges (including unlawful abortion) mostly related to the attack on the mother.

Anyway, it's possible to justify the scene as stopping the process before it was complete enough to be considered a living being. I don't think anyone can analogize how far along in the process they were to conclude otherwise.

 

[Timo]

We shouldn't completely ignore all that early-seasons talk about TNG humans "no longer fearing death" and whatnot. There isn't much evidence that terminating of lives would be disapproved of as a thing: our heroes just want to stop forces that threaten to go on doing such terminating for reasons they don't agree with. One-off killings that serve greater good result in nary a reaction. And actions of alien cultures apparently aren't within Starfleet jurisdiction, even when the victims are Feds! Plus, it reputedly is the duty of a Starfleet employee to die when necessary, such as when the Prime Directive would otherwise fail to be observed; right to self-defense is ruled flat out in such cases.

Piling all that together, it seems that murder is an inalienable right, at least if you happen to be an alien. If you are human, it may earn you a mild brainwashing, though. But in arguments about abortion or cloning or the like, the fact that lives get terminated would then probably play a relatively minor role overall.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Kobayshi Maru]

We shouldn't completely ignore all that early-seasons talk about TNG humans "no longer fearing death" and whatnot. There isn't much evidence that terminating of lives would be disapproved of as a thing: our heroes just want to stop forces that threaten to go on doing such terminating for reasons they don't agree with. One-off killings that serve greater good result in nary a reaction. And actions of alien cultures apparently aren't within Starfleet jurisdiction, even when the victims are Feds! Plus, it reputedly is the duty of a Starfleet employee to die when necessary, such as when the Prime Directive would otherwise fail to be observed; right to self-defense is ruled flat out in such cases.

Piling all that together, it seems that murder is an inalienable right, at least if you happen to be an alien. If you are human, it may earn you a mild brainwashing, though. But in arguments about abortion or cloning or the like, the fact that lives get terminated would then probably play a relatively minor role overall.

Timo Saloniemi

This doesn't make any sense nor is it related to the series in general. Take the ep. where Wesley is threatened to be executed. They definitely didn't consider his life expandable then, to be sacrificed on the altar of the prime directive.

Double standard, anyone?

How about the "exocomps" (sp?) , even Picard found it acceptable to be sacrificed by Data to preserve these things. And yet, somehow, human clones can be summary killed by some brute without consequences?!!!

Talk about disjointed logic! Once the process of cloning was engaged, Riker had no right to intervene. A woman can abort a child inside her but she would have no right to kill a baby in a hospital, even a premature one.

What Riker did is unconscionable, but then again, a few things are done in the ST universe that are highly objectionable. I guess, in a fantasy world, anything can happen, no matter, how idiotic and people will find a way to see it as acceptable.

 

[Trekker4747]

How about the "exocomps" (sp?) , even Picard found it acceptable to be sacrificed by Data to preserve these things. And yet, somehow, human clones can be summary killed by some brute without consequences?!!!

Again, look at the clones as being fetuses in, say, the first trimester. Not yet viable organisms that can survive on their own without the growth chamber. You seem very dead-set intent on ripping Riker apart here without considering the other possibilities and looking at the scene in the context of what the clones were at this stage and the grander context of what we know about the 24th century. We know that they consider abortion to a viable choice (again, see "The Child" where abortion is brought up as a viable action to take on the unknown fetus developing in Deanna's womb. A fetus, given how big Deanna was, that was quite well developed.) We also know that humans are too keen to kill so easily, generally don't like doing it, will do it at a last resort and even then will do it and feel bad about it at the end.

Taking all of this into consideration we can construe that the clones in the growth chambers were not yet seen as separate, sentient, beings with a right to life. Either because they were clones, clones gotten through a hostile taking of their DNA or because they simply were not viable yet to exist outside of the chambers. The values of Riker and Pulaski, the values they have as 24th century humans and Starfleet officers, didn't see the clones as individuals or as alive, so there was no harm in "killing" them.

It's very hard to see where this line is, or to understand where it is, but if a fetus in the late first or second trimester of development is seen as not being a "sentient being" enough for abortion to be an option a clone in a chamber that's a little more than a formless, pink, mass; not yet developed fully and still in need of the chamber to continuing developing is likely seen as being open to abortion as well.

If you want to so cruelly judge and harsh on Riker, you have not much to go on. It'd be a lot different if Riker went to a fully developed clone and killed it as it was walking around making on the clone twins/triplets. In fact, for all intents and purposes Riker DID encounter something of a clone and though he thought it questioned his uniqueness and individuality his first reaction wasn't to kill it. Both from the perspective of "our" Commander Riker and Lt. Commander Riker the transporter duplicate. Both saw the other as an individual and not deserving of death.

So how about you tone down the disdain for Riker and consider that he didn't kill a person he destroyed a lifeless mass of cells that was still developing into something.

 

[Mojochi]

We don't even know if it is "Online" during the incubation. If it isn't, then it's not even having life taken from it, at whatever stage of development it's in. Much the same as a Soong android before it's 1st started

We. Don't. Know. Anything. About. Them.

As the George Clinton song goes.... They're just a biological speculation....

 

[T'Girl]

Well, it depends on the state, but probably not murder.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a Federal law. Plus about 38 states have their own fetal homicide laws.

Again, look at the clones as being fetuses in, say, the first trimester.

Problem I have with that is a actual Human fetus at the end of the first trimester is just over a inch long and weights in at a third of a ounce. What we saw in the murder scene was a Human physical form that was about adult full size.

Not yet viable organisms that can survive on their own without the growth chamber.

Viable means capable of living or of developing into a living thing.

If you meant solely being able to survive completely on their own, a new born baby is also "not yet viable."

 

[Trekker4747]

Your pedantry knows no bounds.

My point was the clones were akin to a fetus in a womb in the earlier months of pregnancy. They needed to be in the chambers in order to continue to develop not only into individuals but in order to survive, physically, outside of the chamber without life-support elements that may have been in or provided by the chamber.

Yes, a baby cannot survive on its own outside the womb without the help of an adult (or older, competent, person.) But it's biologically capable of functioning on its own without the need for help by being biologically connected to the mother.

It can breathe, it can pump blood, it can take in and make use of nutrients. It's an independent being. (Barring any birth defects or health complications.) In the womb it needs the mother's body to do all of these things, a fetus is not much more than a very complicated parasite inside a host. It leeches nutrients and biologics from the mother.

Even pre-maturely born babies struggle to survive once outside the womb for the simple fact they've not developed long enough in the womb and need to be kept alive with machines in order to continue developing to a point they can live on their own body's processes.

The clones in the episode were in the incubation chambers and other than having vaguely human-like forms they were clearly underdeveloped and (ignoring the special effects limitations of the series at the time) clearly had some "growing" to do.

They were very likely akin to a fetus inside the womb before reaching a developmental stage where it can survive outside the mother and without the need for machines to help the developmental process. Now, while a prematurely born baby kept alive on life-support is certainly considered a person and has all of the rights as one, meaning it cannot be 'aborted' at this stage (Though life-saving treatment can legally be held should the child succumb to its deficiencies) we can infer that the clones are not, at least not in the stage we see them in the episode. If they were further enough along to display much more distinctive features or to have some biological functions operating (there's not even any indication in the episodes the clones were breathing) we could chastise Riker for vaporizing them.

But from what we've seen, and know, the clones were not yet far enough along to be seen as living individuals. Vaporizing them was no more a big deal than aborting a fetus in maybe the first trimester, before it can survive outside the womb. And, again, we know that abortion is considered a viable option for expecting mothers in the 24c.

 

[Mojochi]

Vaporizing them was no more a big deal than aborting a fetus in maybe the first trimester,

For all we know... less. We don't even know if there's brain function. Their cloning technique is such that the creature is formed full scale in the pod by some method that looks to be generating their structure molecularly. It's likely an unfinished glob of humanish stuff, until it is complete, & then brought to life. It couldn't be any kind of viable organism until then, because it's molecular structure doesn't even look complete