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

[apenpaap]

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?

[Vainamoinen]

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 B]

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.

[taumel]

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 Fawful]

I would say yes but only if going back in time to prevent yourself from being born is tantamount to suicide.

[LuigiHann]

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 Fawful]

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?

[LuigiHann]

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

[taumel]

But he already existed, otherwise apenpaap wouldn't have brought up the idea/motivation doing so.

[LuigiHann]

And that's why it's just as bad as killing him

[taumel]

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.

[Ribs]

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9729/takei.png
Yes, as you'd be guilty of TIME CRIME!

[Secret Fawful]

Time murder is a tough crime to pull off. The hours are killer.

[GuruGuru214]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/GuruGuru214/timemurderyeah.png




...I'm sorry.

[Secret Fawful]

Guru's sorry we can't hear him over the sound of how awesome he is.

[jeeno0142]

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!]

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.

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^

[Brainiac]

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!]

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 Tope]

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?

[Friar]

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 Tope]

..let's not get into abortion, please?

pretty please?

[taumel]

pretty please sounds...cute :O)

[MarkDarin]

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:

[taumel]

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 Dashing]

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 (http://goo.gl/jrKX7) as well as the law of 34 individual states considers unborn children to be possible victims of homocide or feticide.

[GuruGuru214]

what's the point of this topic again?

Good question. I'm surprised at apenpaap. This is something I would expect from doodo.

[doodo!]

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.

[apenpaap]

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!]

Personally I think you're both being judgmental, and are more right for each other.

[PecanBlue]

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.

[GuruGuru214]

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 Kollic]

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9eN1RoaIeQ) on this one. Man should not foolishly meddle with the timeline!

[GuruGuru214]

That's my favorite episode of Zim ever.

[coolsome]

Yep, I'm with Professor Membrane (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9eN1RoaIeQ) on this one. Man should not foolishly meddle with the timeline!

ZIIIIM!!!!! Don't use the time machine love ZIIIIIIIIIIIIM!!!!!!

[Jen Kollic]

The Most Horrible X-Mas Ever is still my favourite holiday special of anything ever.

[Alcoremortis]

That's funny, I always thought it looked something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow3u-P3coaA&feature=fvw). :p

Edit: Wait, where'd the post I was replying to go? Oh, well...

[taumel]

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 (http://guckmal.lurulu.de/wormhole.html), (still rmb for fullscreen).

[Sausy Gibbon]

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.

[LuigiHann]

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 Dashing]

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:

[Avistew]

I say it's not murder. Otherwise, by NOT going in the past, you're commiting murder against the one who ends up being born instead if you do go in the past.
This person hasn't existed yet. Anything you do that changes the future isn't killing them, it's preventing them from being born, which is quite different. Murder is taking life from someone alive, with side effects (people who loved them are sad, etc), here you remove the side effects (nobody's mourning people who never existed to begin with) and you're not taking a life.
Actually, since he won't be born, he can't die. You might have been committing murder against the one who WILL be born, since as a result they will die at some point, at that will be your fault.

EDIT: I was being facetious, by the way, unless you want to charge every bio parent ever with murder. Regardless, I thinkif preventing someone from being born is murder, then every woman who produces an egg and doesn't have sex as much as she can to fertilize it is commiting murder, since a fertilized egg would have resulted in a person.
Obviously, that's not true. I don't think it's worse just because you knew that person could have existed. It's still just one possibility out of thousands (probably way more than that, really), just because it's the one you're aware of doesn't give it any precendence. Just going back in time is going to change things and cause people not to be born, is it better because it's people that you didn't know?

[taumel]

@LuigiHann
If you're thinking in fourth dimensions and if time machines would be possible you can be assured that this would be a murder like case, maybe they come up with some other spiffy name but it would be rated the same way because it ereasures that person which already existed from the future and again it doesn't matter how you remove/murder him, the only fact that matters is that you've removed him.

Secondly mankind definately would be very much interested that the present/future stays the way it was and will forbid time machines because otherwise it will lead into complete chaos which will lead to degeneration and most probably the extinction of the human race, because humans are just humans. Some will go back in time to alter things for their advantages, some will just like to life in another time or trying to prevent the death of their husband, others will leave into the future because they don't want to deal with the current problems and are hoping/curious for better times in the future, and so one, mankind would be lost in time, loosing the motivation and ability to evolve. This might also decrease the humans living at the same place and time to a degree where the genetic material isn't sufficient anymore, then you have to go back in time again hijack people, and so on and on and on.

I could imagine that organisations or nations will have the desire for secret projects in which they try to get information, prevent crime or alter the future for their advantage but then again the others sides will try the same and it come down trying to prevent them from doing so. At some point nations, like in the cold war, would at least officially agree on not using the technology.

If you're taking this serious, you could write pages about this subject. Only one person quietly doing it might sound romantic, such a technology beeing available to the masses would lead to the most serious problem we've ever faced.