Those of you who are Trekkies/Trekkers may well know of the first episode of the second season of Star Trek: The Next Generation. That episode is called "The Child". In it, Counselor Deanna Troi becomes impregnated without her consent by an alien life-force. The life-form takes her flesh, and the pregnancy proceeds with astonishing rapidity (a couple of days). As you might imagine, the senior officers have a debate early on about what to do. Should the pregnancy be terminated? We see Troi half tuning out the discussion, as the camera solely focuses on her. After about fifteen seconds, she boldly declares, "Captain, do whatever you feel is necessary to protect the ship and the crew, but know this: I'm going to have this baby." The captain dutifully replies, "Then it seems the discussion is over." It's the perfect female-centric sentiment for this issue, even for 1988. Let's pause a moment and think.
Do we really intend to say that a baby acquires rights if and only if the mother wishes it to be so? Many people (the censors included) were probably relieved she chose to have the baby. It's still a worthy question. The characters, including Troi, call the life a "baby" and prattle on about the miracle of life plenty, which is incongruous for a show about the atheistic future. And of course, this incoherence with its fulcrum at the mother's will is a normal feature of our debates around this issue. The whole matter is morally absurd, though, and we should know it.
Another species of this utilitarianism is the notion that even a mother or father has the right to decide whether their child lives or dies. At almost no other point would we permit this incoherent foolishness. We would arrest parents who killed their children, whether directly, or through negligence. Because we live in a universe governed by reason--even with great tragedy and loss--this incoherence can't be sustained. I'm hopeful that we won't sustain it much longer.
Do we really intend to say that a baby acquires rights if and only if the mother wishes it to be so? Many people (the censors included) were probably relieved she chose to have the baby. It's still a worthy question. The characters, including Troi, call the life a "baby" and prattle on about the miracle of life plenty, which is incongruous for a show about the atheistic future. And of course, this incoherence with its fulcrum at the mother's will is a normal feature of our debates around this issue. The whole matter is morally absurd, though, and we should know it.
Another species of this utilitarianism is the notion that even a mother or father has the right to decide whether their child lives or dies. At almost no other point would we permit this incoherent foolishness. We would arrest parents who killed their children, whether directly, or through negligence. Because we live in a universe governed by reason--even with great tragedy and loss--this incoherence can't be sustained. I'm hopeful that we won't sustain it much longer.
Comments