Logline

Commander Una Chin-Riley faces court-martial along with possible imprisonment and dishonorable dismissal from Starfleet, and her defense is in the hands of a lawyer who’s also a childhood friend with whom she had a terrible falling out.


Written by Dana Horgan

Directed by Valerie Weiss

    • psychothumbs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      It is correct actually. Make an counterargument if you can, but as I’ve been saying, there really isn’t one beyond trying to smear something reasonable like enhancing children with the brush of something bad like forced sterilizations by lumping them under the same “eugenics” label.

      • Mezentine@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        What you think “enhancement” means now is very different from what people might have said “enhancement” meant in the 60s which is very different from what they thought “enhancement” would have been in the 20s and is very different from what we might think it means in the 2050s. Homosexuality used to be a mental disorder, and it would have been an enhancement to “cure” it. There would have even been gay people who would have voluntarily taken that cure because of the distress society subjected them to, there are records of patients coming to medical professionals looking for treatment. I like the alternate solution to that problem we’re currently making progress towards, in which we accept and support that there are diverse ways for people to exist, and I do not trust that we have correctly figured out what things about human being are currently “wrong” and which things can be “improved”

      • bulbasaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        The idea that you can modify someone’s genes to “enhance” them is bog standard “positive” eugenics. It’s literally the definition of eugenics and it’s upsetting to me that you are treating this like a debate.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127045/

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41434-019-0088-1

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_eugenics

        New eugenics […] advocates enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive technology and human genetic engineering.

        • psychothumbs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          You can see that you’re just doing what I described and making an argument solely based on “eugenics” being a broad term that includes evil things right? What is the concern you have about letting parents modify their unborn child’s genes, besides the fact that it could ungenerously be described as eugenics?

          • bulbasaur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            It’s literally eugenics. There’s nothing ungenerous about calling it what it is.

            If you don’t see the issue with genetically modifying children without their consent to “enhance” them or make them racially “superior” then I can’t help you.