›

Is it murder to go back in time to prevent someone from being born?

apenpaapapenpaap
edited November 2010 in General Chat
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
Imagine I hypothetically went back into time and prevented someone I don't like from being born. Not by killing his parents or forcing them to get an abortion of course (because that would definitely be murder), and not even by preventing them from getting together. I would simply become a friend of his father in the past, and invite him for a sleepover or a party or something on the night the person whose birth I am trying to prevent was conceived in the original timeline. As such, he will be conceived the next day, or some completely other day. By then, the sperm cell that originally conceived him will be a lot older (as sperm cells only live about 5 days) and slower, or dead. So some other sperm cell will fertilize his mother's egg cell, and someone with different DNA (like a brother or sister of the original person) would be born, and the person I am trying to remove would never be born at all.
Would that be murder?
«1

Comments

  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited November 2010
    By definition, no.

    But if you'd like to talk about the moral implications of your action... that's quite another thing. It's a willful act with a plan based on knowledge of the (possible) future.
  • Harald BHarald B
    edited November 2010
    I'm leaning towards no. Look at it this way: by not going through with this plan, you're preventing this potential brother or sister from being born. If your scenario is murder, then you're murdering a dazzling amount of potential people every time you visit the past at all. It would be hardly any better than claiming that you should rape everyone because not doing so constitutes murdering the potential child.
  • taumeltaumel
    edited November 2010
    Beside of that it's physically impossible, this pretty much depends on the laws which would be in force and if travelling back in time would be common, i could imagine this beeing against the laws in several points, one of them beeing murder, you made your intention pretty obvious as well. Beside of this the results of this action could be even worse than what you've hoped for to correct.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited November 2010
    I would say yes but only if going back in time to prevent yourself from being born is tantamount to suicide.
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited November 2010
    I wouldn't say that this would be murder, because murder is a real word that means something specific, but I would say that if you were to deliberately act in the way you describe, with the specific intention of unwriting someone's existence, then it would be just as bad as murder for the same reasons that murder is bad.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited November 2010
    But doesn't killing someone without specific intent to count as manslaughter? I thought only killing for self-defense or as a soldier under orders(usually) counted as non-murder. So unless you're engaging in a time war (did I just say that?) or the undoing of the persons birth is somehow done with the intent to protect yourself, isn't it still manslaughter?
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited November 2010
    Secret Fawful wrote: »
    But doesn't killing someone without specific intent to count as manslaughter? I thought only killing for self-defense or as a soldier under orders(usually) counted as non-murder. So unless you're engaging in a time war (did I just say that?) or the undoing of the persons birth is somehow done with the intent to protect yourself, isn't it still manslaughter?

    I'm just saying that, from a literal standpoint, preventing someone from ever existing is a different thing from killing
  • taumeltaumel
    edited November 2010
    But he already existed, otherwise apenpaap wouldn't have brought up the idea/motivation doing so.
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited November 2010
    And that's why it's just as bad as killing him
  • taumeltaumel
    edited November 2010
    It's not just like killing him, it is killing him. Instead of a knife or a gun he just takes the knowledge about the past and a time machine.
  • RibsRibs
    edited November 2010
    takei.png
    Yes, as you'd be guilty of TIME CRIME!
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited November 2010
    Time murder is a tough crime to pull off. The hours are killer.
  • GuruGuru214GuruGuru214
    edited November 2010
    timemurderyeah.png




    ...I'm sorry.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited November 2010
    Guru's sorry we can't hear him over the sound of how awesome he is.
  • jeeno0142jeeno0142
    edited November 2010
    I think it would be a sort of murder. You knew that he existed, that he had a life with certain likes and dislikes, his own opinions and his own family. Everyone else may not remember him, but you will have to live with the guilt of having erased him. Also, if you stop him from being born, then you stop all his potential children from being born, and all their potential children from being born and so on and so on. It's not just a murder of sorts, but a mass murder of sorts.
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited November 2010
    What if some one went back in time and tired to prevent your birth? I think it would come very natural to you to call it murder.

    Gil Grisom is the only awesome CSI.
    Vainamoinen wrote: »
    By definition, no.

    But if you'd like to talk about the moral implications of your action... that's quite another thing. It's a willful act with a plan based on knowledge of the (possible) future.

    Yeah that^
  • BrainiacBrainiac
    edited November 2010
    As I recall, Dr. Silberman in the first Terminator movie referred to the SkyNet plan to deal with John Connor as a "retroactive abortion." That's a whole other can of worms right there.
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited November 2010
    Brainiac wrote: »
    As I recall, Dr. Silberman in the first Terminator movie referred to the SkyNet plan to deal with John Connor as a "retroactive abortion." That's a whole other can of worms right there.

    Yeah, you just opened the gates, this place will be locked tight as soon as it burns to the ground and admins have to prevent visitors from entering so that they don't fall through the crisp floors to the old basement.
  • Giant TopeGiant Tope
    edited November 2010
    It can only be called murder if going back in time to prevent a building being built is called demolition.


    what's the point of this topic again?
  • FriarFriar
    edited November 2010
    Vainamoinen wrote: »
    By definition, no.

    But if you'd like to talk about the moral implications of your action... that's quite another thing. It's a willful act with a plan based on knowledge of the (possible) future.

    But what about abortions? That is pretty similair when it comes down to it. Preventing a life from happening, that you know would otherwise have existed.
  • Giant TopeGiant Tope
    edited November 2010
    ..let's not get into abortion, please?

    pretty please?
  • taumeltaumel
    edited November 2010
    pretty please sounds...cute :O)
  • MarkDarinMarkDarin Former Telltale Staff
    edited November 2010
    Well, if we are using BTTF rules here, then no, it isn't murder, because all you are really doing is creating an alternate time line. The person whose birth you are preventing will still be born and exist in the original timeline, but a second time line will now run parallel without the existence of said person...

    ... or something. :confused:
  • taumeltaumel
    edited November 2010
    If i remember the BTTF films correctly they had some logical faults.

    Btw just out of curiosity how many physical paradoxons do you know? You know stuff which for instance acts against fundamental physical laws like cause and effect?
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited November 2010
    Vainamoinen wrote: »
    By definition, no.
    ...What's your legal precedent for that?

    It depends on how you prevent their birth, for one. In the United States, federal law as well as the law of 34 individual states considers unborn children to be possible victims of homocide or feticide.
  • GuruGuru214GuruGuru214
    edited November 2010
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    what's the point of this topic again?

    Good question. I'm surprised at apenpaap. This is something I would expect from doodo.
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited November 2010
    GuruGuru214 wrote: »
    Good question. I'm surprised at apenpaap. This is something I would expect from doodo.

    I thought it was a good topic to be honest.
  • apenpaapapenpaap
    edited November 2010
    GuruGuru214 wrote: »
    Good question. I'm surprised at apenpaap. This is something I would expect from doodo.

    I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult.
    I was just thinking about the implications of time travel (having recently rewatched the BTTF trilogy), and was wondering about this and what people's view on the matter would be.
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited November 2010
    Personally I think you're both being judgmental, and are more right for each other.
  • PecanBluePecanBlue
    edited November 2010
    Man, I was so excited seeing the title for this thread because it sounded funny, but this thread turned awkward quickly.

    Anyway, I don't know if it would be called murder but from what Saturday Morning Cartoons and other things that use this cliche has told us, messing with time in general is bad, so we just shouldn't bother. Butterfly effect, etc.
  • GuruGuru214GuruGuru214
    edited November 2010
    apenpaap wrote: »
    I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or an insult.
    I was just thinking about the implications of time travel (having recently rewatched the BTTF trilogy), and was wondering about this and what people's view on the matter would be.

    Well when you phrase it that way...
  • Jen KollicJen Kollic
    edited November 2010
    PecanBlue wrote: »
    Anyway, I don't know if it would be called murder but from what Saturday Morning Cartoons and other things that use this cliche has told us, messing with time in general is bad, so we just shouldn't bother.

    Yep, I'm with Professor Membrane on this one. Man should not foolishly meddle with the timeline!
  • GuruGuru214GuruGuru214
    edited November 2010
    That's my favorite episode of Zim ever.
  • coolsomecoolsome
    edited November 2010
    Jen Kollic wrote: »
    Yep, I'm with Professor Membrane on this one. Man should not foolishly meddle with the timeline!

    ZIIIIM!!!!! Don't use the time machine love ZIIIIIIIIIIIIM!!!!!!
  • Jen KollicJen Kollic
    edited November 2010
    The Most Horrible X-Mas Ever is still my favourite holiday special of anything ever.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited November 2010
    That's funny, I always thought it looked something like this. :p

    Edit: Wait, where'd the post I was replying to go? Oh, well...
  • taumeltaumel
    edited November 2010
    Yeah i'm sorry, my fault, i thought i might find some further time to enhance the effect but sadly i haven't, so enjoy or hate this 1h fun: taumel's time slipping effect, (still rmb for fullscreen).
  • Sausy GibbonSausy Gibbon
    edited November 2010
    If you hated this hypothetical person would he be just slightly different but looked different? It would depend how much his personalty was caused by his upbringing and how much was genetic.
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited November 2010
    taumel wrote: »
    It's not just like killing him, it is killing him. Instead of a knife or a gun he just takes the knowledge about the past and a time machine.

    I'm just thinking that, technically speaking, to kill someone is to take a living person and cause them to become dead. This scenario would cause them to become nonexistent instead of dead, and I think there's a difference, at least in terms of the words one would use to describe the situation
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited November 2010
    In this scenario, why are we assuming that the evil is completely contained within the sperm cell anyway? What if it was a particularly malevolent egg cell? :confused::confused::confused:
Sign in to comment in this discussion.