The murder of Tuvix, revisited

My opponent has made some interesting counter points. I will delve right into them. My opponent suggests that it is merely an idea that Tuvok and Neelix are alive. He even suggests that because Tuvok and Neelix can not be found on the planet or the Voyager that they are in fact dead. I wonder if those are the only criteria for life? It is not merely an idea that they are alive. We see them alive after Captain Janeway rescues them. My opponent suggests that it is merely symbiogenesis. To see the problem with that we must first explore symbiogenesis. Symbiogenesis is "the merging of separate organisms to form a single organism." A good example of symbiogenesis is mitochondria. [1] Mitochondria are organelles that produce ATP. Originally,mitochondria were free living prokaryotic cells. Another nucleated cell engulfed one of these prokaryotic cells. Both cells thrived. Mitochondria have their own genomes. However, let us say that we plucked a mitochondrium from a cell. What would happen to the mitochondria? It would not survive. This was not the case with Tuvok and Neelix.[2][3] Let's go back to the original prokaryote that was engulfed. Why was it engulfed? The engulfing process is known as endocytosis. Cells perform endocytosis in an effort to eat them. Now my guess would be that the prokaryote probably was not looking to be a victim of violence that day. I would say that the same is true for Tuvok and Neelix. Let's say we did the same thing as above. We pluck the prokaryote from the attacking cell. Would the prokayote have lived? It has been suggested that we do not consider the rights of my parents cells inside my body. However this is a very different situation. Using myself as an example, I am a combination of my parents DNA. Half of my DNA was supplied from one parent. The other half from another. Let us say that we were able to isolate my father's half of my genome. The we were to use the transporter to separate the two. What would happen? Would we have my mother and father standing there? No there would be a hot mess. We are not considering the rights of the cells. We are considering the rights of both Tuvok and Neelix. [4] Let's consider something else about the rights of Tuvok and Neelix. My opponent suggests that " violated the orchid's natural reproduction and sacrificed one individual to harness his DNA and cells." At what point do either Tuvok or Neelix give consent to being part of this act from the orchid? They did not. The orchid violated their rights from the beginning. Their rights continue to be violated by Tuvix. Again, Captain Janeway is taxed with defending the rights of her crew members. Furthermore, Captain Janeway does not "harness DNA" from Tuvix. She restored Tuvok and Neelix after their rights had been violated. My opponent again suggests that Captain Janeway acted with malice in her actions. He even says that "we can establish malice from the total disregard for the life and desires of Tuvix." This is not true. One can disagree with Captain Janeway's actions. However, Captain Janeway was acting in a manner to defend and save her crew. She was not acting with evil intent toward Tuvix. This clearly does not meet the legal definition of "malice." It was mentioned that someone can resign from their position in Starfleet to be protected from an order to die outside of combat. First, I would like to say that Tuvix did not resign his post. Even after directly disobeying Captain Janeway's order to accompany her. However, being ordered to die was not what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that a Starfleet Captain may occasionally have to make decisions that may cost lives to save lives. A Captain hopes that that day never happens, but must be prepared if it ever does. [5] My opponent suggests that if we "If we establish that an individual's right to life can be sacrificed to benefit the many, we will have reached a conclusion that fundamentally undermines our ethics and valuation of individual life." He also spent quite a bit of time about individual rights. However, his focus seems to be on civilians. We are focusing on actions in a military setting. My opponent claims that over the years we see a migration toward personal rights over the rights of the many. This is not the case in the military. Once during World War II, a B-17 bomber was headed back to base. The ball gunner on the bottom of the aircraft was trapped. The landing gear did not work. A taxing decision had to be made. The aircraft landed. The gunner was crushed under the plane.[6] I doubt that this man wished to die. But the pilot had to make a decision to save the rest of the crew. [1] http://www.annualreviews.org... [2] http://www.nature.com... [3] http://www.biology.iupui.edu... [4] http://users.rcn.com... [5] Star Trek Voyager "Tuvix" [6] Ambrose, Stephen E. "Citizen Soldier" pgs 300-301