Sara, I agree with most of the things you said, but I have to return to this:
But I think it's a matter of being so desperate he's not thinking straight at that point. He wants to find a way to save his parents AND Lois. She presents him with an oportuntiy to do it.
Furthermore, Lois can be VERY determined when she wants to be. And she was at that point.
Technically speaking, he wasn't obiligated to do it. He could have just said "no" and flown out the window. But I get the impression if he didn't help her save Clark and his parents (which is what Lois was trying to do by asking this), she would never want to speak to him again, secret or no secret.
In my opinion, he absolutely should not. And here's why.
Yes, if Clark did not freeze Lois, he risked the lives of his parents. That is an absolutely awful situation and a most horrible choice.
But - if Martha and Jonathan had been killed,
it would not have been Clark who killed them. It would have been their kidnappers who killed them. Surely you can't say that, for example, if a kidnapped American soldier was killed in Iraq, it was the United States who killed the soldier by failing to meet the kidnappers' demands?
But if Lois had been killed,
it would have been Clark who killed her. Suppose those kidnappers in Iraq had demanded that the United States had to
kill somebody that those kidnappers regarded as their enemy for them to spare the kidnapped soldier's life and hand him over to the Americans. Would the United States have agreed to those terms? Would they let the world know that they agreed to those terms? Would they say that, yes, our soldier means more to us than this other guy, and we have talked to the other guy and he agrees to let us kill him, so that is what we are going to do to get our soldier back?
All I can say is that if the United States had openly agreed to those terms, so many people in so many parts of the world would have been shocked. The reason is that the United States is thought of as a country that upholds certain ideals. There are things that the United States wouldn't do, such as kill an innocent person to get another person back.
In the same way, Superman is thought of as a person that upholds certain ideals. Among other things, he is thought of as a person who doesn't kill. He is most certainly thought of as a person who would never use his superpowers to kill an
innocent person as a way of bartering with kidnappers.
Clark is given the choice to try to get his parents back by actively using his superpowers on Lois and possibly kill her, or to try to get his parents back from the kidnappers by some other means. Clark chooses to gravely endanger Lois's life. But that is precisely the sort of choice he should
never make.
Terry, you kindly point out to me that Superman isn't real. The thought has actually occurred to me. But what makes it so interesting to discuss Superman's actions is that he is defined as the ultimate good guy. He is not perfect, no. He will certainly make mistakes. And LnC's Superman was, in certain ways at least, more flawed than the older versions of him used to be. I can chalk up his decision to propose to Lois without telling her about his secret identity to his uncertainty and general imperfection. He can be a good but flawed and scared guy and still propose to Lois in such a dishonest and cowardly way. (I don't think he can be a good guy and actually
marry her without telling her.) But can he deliberately put Lois in mortal danger by using his own superpowers on her in a life-threatening way and still be a good guy? I don't think so.
Sara, you said:
Furthermore, Lois can be VERY determined when she wants to be. And she was at that point.
Technically speaking, he wasn't obiligated to do it. He could have just said "no" and flown out the window. But I get the impression if he didn't help her save Clark and his parents (which is what Lois was trying to do by asking this), she would never want to speak to him again, secret or no secret.
Here's what I think about integrity.
You don't actively and deliberately put a friend in mortal danger just because he or she asks you to. So maybe your friend won't speak to you afterwards if you refused to endanger his or her life. Maybe you have lost this person's friendship forever. Well, that's a pity, but so be it. Because if your friend behaves like that, then he or she was not a real friend. Your friend actually asks you to commit a very serious crime, and to risk having your friend's death on your conscience for the rest of your life. If your friend dies, then every time someone misses him or her or grieves for your friend, then you know that it is
your fault that this person does not exist any more.
If Lois had rejected Clark forever because he wouldn't freeze her in ATAI, then Clark was lucky to find out before it was too late what sort of a person Lois was. Persuading Clark to freeze her was one thing, although that in itself was a really bad thing, too. But never forgiving him for not complying with her request would be shocking proof of Lois's unreasonableness and selfishness. The way I see it, if Lois truly respects and honours Superman, she will not try to put him in a situation where he might become a killer. That is why Lois's behaviour as well as Clark's is out of character in ATAI.
I find it interesting to dicuss what Clark can do or not from a moral point of view because I've grown up regarding him as an icon of goodness. I've learnt to accept that he can be very very good, yet flawed. I find it very interesting to contemplate what a good yet flawed guy can do. I agree that he can propose in a dishonest and cowardly way, like Clark did in ATAI. But you'll never make me say that it was acceptable for him to actively use his superpowers to put Lois in mortal danger as a way of bartering with kidnappers.
And that's why I can't read fics which tell me that Clark deserves all our commiseration and pity because he was forced to sacrifice his loved one to get his parents back. The thing is that Lois's life was not Clark's to sacrifice, no matter if Lois told him that it was.
Ann
