Non-human Sapients and their rights

[Christopher]

This questions boils down too:
Are they humans/sentients, or beasts?

 

In my Champions game, I had phenomenon of recent history that unleashed several hundred thousand intelligent creatures based on various animals. Most of whom have a bipedal stance, hands with opposable thumbs and the ability to communicate complex concepts, usually by human or human-like speech. In simple terms, mutant animals of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles variety, but I felt it important to word it that way. These creatures are commonly referred to as "Moreaus" and were created artificially in several laboratory facilities. Their creation was illegal and their events leading to their release are still not entirely known. But it raises an important issue and that is, what are their rights?

 

From Champions Universe, this piece that pertains to the legal status of Moreaus.
"A number of Supreme Court rulings have stated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection do not apply to sentient aliens, extradimensional entities, artificial intelligences, and the undead, because they are not “persons” under the law. On the other hand, they do apply to mutants, mutates, clones, and genetic constructs based on human stock. Congress has, however, passed laws granting at least limited rights to all “independent, free-willed, sentient entities” in American territory."

Yes, some human DNA was used in their creation, but they are derived primarily from various animals, not from human stock.

Regarding the bolded part:

Since clones and mutants are mentioend seperately, I would say that no mater how little Human DNA they got, they do qualify as "genetic cosntructs based on human stock". The human parts they did mix in propably included the intelligence part, wich is a big part of being human under the law. If they were mostly human DNA, with some animal spliced in that would make them mutated clones (is that what "mutates" means?).

Many forms of human disability makes them incapable to walk bipedal or speech. Some of those are genetic/inherited. Yet they are still considered human beings, sentient and persons under the law. In most cases even "grown up adults".

 

Being considered sentient is what differentiates humans from animals primarily in my view.

The Game Sonic 2006 is infamous not only for it's terrible gameplay, but in part also for "the kiss". Basically a human princess kissed Sonic, the Titular Hedgehog, as part of bringing him back to life. Oddly enough people called it necrophiliac bestiality. But it is not bestiality in my book, because both were sentient. Just compare the situation to Mass Effect with Liara and MaleShep. The only difference is wich of the two is naturally blue in either relationship. And boy they did a lot more then just a single peck on the lips back in ME.

The "necrophiliac" part? Well the situation is the exact same as in Snowwhite and the Prince whos kiss removed the apple. And it was literally the ceremony that turned him back to life, with the kiss propably being part of the process. It was less Necrophiliac, because there was at least a decent chance to asume he would be alive again (unlike for that prince in snowwhite).

In feudal Japan the lowest "class" were the once that had to deal with Fecal Mater, Much skin/sweat contact (including Geishas) and the dead. They were even below peasants, wich was a pretty shitty class. Now Picture a D&D world were high level priest had the ability to revive the dead, but any priest doing it being considered an outcast because he touched the dead to bring him back to life. It would make no sense.

 

On the other hand this Robot Chicken Episode:

It was indeed bestiality from James side. Because most normal deer are not sentient in that world. With a sentient deer it would have been wierd, but okay-ish.

Until they realised who that deer was. Then it was "Sex with Student" and possibly "Sex with an underaged kid" on the side of the other deer, but okay for James.

[Heroic Halfwit]

At the moment, I suspect the Moreaux would occupy a place similar to frozen embryos, or aborted fetuses prior to 1992 (as I recall).  In both of these cases, the entities fall through the cracks.  One case involved an abortion clinic that threw the products of abortions literally on the curb.  At the time, the fetuses, in uttero, were not legal persons and the products of abortions had not been specifically designated as "medical waste" or any other kind of regulated substance under the federal, state, or local statues or regulations.

 

A unique organism created by genetic engineering is a patent eligible invention.  

 

At the first instance, any Moreaux would start as property, and under Steve's precedents would most likely remain so.  I would think that "person" for the purposes of determining who has human dignity and therefore Constitutional rights will depend upon whether the entity was created by reproductive action of 2 humans of opposite sex, even if such reproductive action was assisted by medical or scientific intervention provided that the genetic makeup of said entity was not altered.

 

So, I would argue that Moreaux would not have any privileges or immunities, nor would they be able to demand equal treatment under the law, nor would they be considered slaves if bound to servitude.

 

The whole issue of what has human dignity and when it obtains that status is still uncertain in the real world.  The consequence of Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood, etc. is that the Supreme Court established a bright line rule that an entity which has not obtained viability (ability to survive outside the pregnant person with assistance) is not a person, but one that has obtained viailbility is a person (or at least a qualified person).  Well, medical science has advanced in the 30ish years since Planned Parenthood and what was not viable at that time, is today.  So is it proper to outlaw abortion at the current viability point or the point established by the Court 3 decades ago?

 

Anyway, I wager that the Moreaux community would have to stage a movement like Women's Suffrage to obtain any rights at all.

[massey]

I'd go a different direction.  Been kicking around the idea a bit, and I'd say that if a group has the ability to argue that they are a person and have rights, then they will be granted personhood and civil rights.  So really what we're looking at is, can the group articulate that they are thinking beings?

 

Really, a lot of what has been talked about so far is a bunch of genetic scientific mumbo jumbo.  I can tell you for a fact, most judges don't understand genetic scientific mumbo jumbo, and they don't want to mess with it.  If they can avoid making a decision based upon a scientific distinction, they will.  Now combine this fact with a second key point:  so far the only definitions of personhood are going to require extensive genetic testing.  The original poster mentioned Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and I don't know if he's talking about the comic versions, or the movie versions, or whatever, but 1980s TMNT cartoon gives us a great example.  The Turtles, under his example, would not be considered persons, because they're derived from animal life.  But Bebop and Rocksteady, who were human originally, would be considered persons.  So the question becomes... how do you tell the difference between them without some form of genetic testing?

 

Answer, you can't.

 

It would require extensive testing to determine what percentage, if any, of a being's DNA came from humans, and what came from animals, and you'd be looking at a fairly arbitrary standard of "how human is human enough?"  Real humans in the real world have a certain percentage of Neanderthal DNA.  I think Europeans are supposed to have about 4%, other groups have less.  Are we not human because there's a little bit of something else in our genetic history?

 

So now you've got a Moreaus, a frog-man thing who wears a top hat and drives a car (like Mr. Toad).  And he gets in a car accident and drives off.  The police chase him down and arrest him.  He asks for a lawyer.  The police aren't sure whether to take him to jail or to the animal shelter.  They decide to take a blood sample, so a doctor can determine if he's "human enough".  Mr. Toad objects, invoking his 4th Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.  The police cannot forcibly take a blood sample without a warrant (there's actual case law on this, there are some exceptions, such as a fatality accident where alcohol consumption is suspected, but there are specific limits).  So now what do they do?

 

If they take blood anyway, and he's "human enough", then they've violated his Constitutional rights.  How can the police know, before they take the blood, whether this particular mutie is a human-animal hybrid or an animal-human hybrid?  Simple, they can't.  So you either go around knowingly and repeatedly violating the rights of US citizens, or you say that you can't do a forced blood draw on someone who has the ability to object.  Effectively you'd be granting Constitutional protections to anyone who says that they have them.  I think the case law would begin developing towards this doctrine as the years went by.  It's gonna take a little bit to get there, but I think that's where we'd end up.

[Weldun]

I'd go a different direction.  Been kicking around the idea a bit, and I'd say that if a group has the ability to argue that they are a person and have rights, then they will be granted personhood and civil rights.  So really what we're looking at is, can the group articulate that they are thinking beings?

 

Really, a lot of what has been talked about so far is a bunch of genetic scientific mumbo jumbo.  I can tell you for a fact, most judges don't understand genetic scientific mumbo jumbo, and they don't want to mess with it.  If they can avoid making a decision based upon a scientific distinction, they will.  Now combine this fact with a second key point:  so far the only definitions of personhood are going to require extensive genetic testing.  The original poster mentioned Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and I don't know if he's talking about the comic versions, or the movie versions, or whatever, but 1980s TMNT cartoon gives us a great example.  The Turtles, under his example, would not be considered persons, because they're derived from animal life.  But Bebop and Rocksteady, who were human originally, would be considered persons.  So the question becomes... how do you tell the difference between them without some form of genetic testing?

 

Answer, you can't.

 

It would require extensive testing to determine what percentage, if any, of a being's DNA came from humans, and what came from animals, and you'd be looking at a fairly arbitrary standard of "how human is human enough?"  Real humans in the real world have a certain percentage of Neanderthal DNA.  I think Europeans are supposed to have about 4%, other groups have less.  Are we not human because there's a little bit of something else in our genetic history?

 

So now you've got a Moreaus, a frog-man thing who wears a top hat and drives a car (like Mr. Toad).  And he gets in a car accident and drives off.  The police chase him down and arrest him.  He asks for a lawyer.  The police aren't sure whether to take him to jail or to the animal shelter.  They decide to take a blood sample, so a doctor can determine if he's "human enough".  Mr. Toad objects, invoking his 4th Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.  The police cannot forcibly take a blood sample without a warrant (there's actual case law on this, there are some exceptions, such as a fatality accident where alcohol consumption is suspected, but there are specific limits).  So now what do they do?

 

If they take blood anyway, and he's "human enough", then they've violated his Constitutional rights.  How can the police know, before they take the blood, whether this particular mutie is a human-animal hybrid or an animal-human hybrid?  Simple, they can't.  So you either go around knowingly and repeatedly violating the rights of US citizens, or you say that you can't do a forced blood draw on someone who has the ability to object.  Effectively you'd be granting Constitutional protections to anyone who says that they have them.  I think the case law would begin developing towards this doctrine as the years went by.  It's gonna take a little bit to get there, but I think that's where we'd end up.

I my original post, I mentioned Eastman and Laird. In that, I was referencing the original TMNT comics. But I think you have the basis of where the rights of non-human sapient beings will lie, on their ability to articulate the very argument for themselves. At least, in court. Which helps explain the very "hands-off" approach of the city police with regards to my Moreaus. They generally just dump the wretch somewhere near The Zoo and call it a day or focus on containment and diffusion of potential situations. The Moreaus have, in a way, hampered their own progress by effectively policing themselves and dealing with issues "in house" and the powers that be in the city have been content to let that situation continue because it means that they don't have to deal with the issue, turning the Moreaus into a disadvantaged class through apathy and neglect instead of any active persecution.

[Lucius]

In feudal Japan the lowest "class" were the once that had to deal with Fecal Mater, Much skin/sweat contact (including Geishas) and the dead. They were even below peasants, wich was a pretty shitty class. Now Picture a D&D world were high level priest had the ability to revive the dead, but any priest doing it being considered an outcast because he touched the dead to bring him back to life. It would make no sense.

Human cultures frequently make no sense. In fact, I might almost argue that it is more common for Human cultures to NOT make sense than for them to make any sense.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary certainly takes the latter position.

[Christopher]

I think it was overread, so I guess I repost it:

 

From Champions Universe, this piece that pertains to the legal status of Moreaus.
"A number of Supreme Court rulings have stated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of due process and equal protection do not apply to sentient aliens, extradimensional entities, artificial intelligences, and the undead, because they are not “persons” under the law. On the other hand, they do apply to mutants, mutates, clones, and genetic constructs based on human stock. Congress has, however, passed laws granting at least limited rights to all “independent, free-willed, sentient entities” in American territory."

Yes, some human DNA was used in their creation, but they are derived primarily from various animals, not from human stock.

If they were based mostly on human DNA, they would fall under clones, mutants or mutant clones.

I am not sure what a "mutate" is. Maybe it is a shorthand for mutant clones?

 

In any case, "genetic constructs based on human stock" are mentioned seperately. Why?

You would think that mutants, mutates and clones would cover all cases? Apparently it was not inclusive enough so they added the "genetic constructs basd on human stock"

Considering that, would the Moreaus not fall eactly under that group? Regardless how little human DNA is in them?

[Steve]

How much human DNA is required to qualify as a person? That's the question. Since the quoted standard uses human DNA as its basis for personhood, it seems to me that at least a smidgen more than half of their DNA needs to originate from humanity. A genetic construct with 5% human and 95% cat DNA seems like it doesn't fit the quoted standard.

[assault]

How much human DNA is required to qualify as a person? That's the question. Since the quoted standard uses human DNA as its basis for personhood, it seems to me that at least a smidgen more than half of their DNA needs to originate from humanity. A genetic construct with 5% human and 95% cat DNA seems like it doesn't fit the quoted standard.

 

A lot of human DNA is also cat DNA. For that matter, a lot of human DNA is also banana DNA.

[Lucius]

 

 

Mice with functioning Human genes have been patented

 

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

 

And apparently, the Patent Office is "in an awkward position of being the federal arbiter of what is human."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19781-2005Feb12.html

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary has a Y? chromosome and a Y-not? chromosome

[Christopher]

How much human DNA is required to qualify as a person? That's the question. Since the quoted standard uses human DNA as its basis for personhood, it seems to me that at least a smidgen more than half of their DNA needs to originate from humanity. A genetic construct with 5% human and 95% cat DNA seems like it doesn't fit the quoted standard.

If at least half of thier DNA was human before being "instantiated" in a Vat they would be plain clones, that have then be mutated. As if you grab some poor guy of the street to mutate him. But I feel like "genetic construct based on human stock" is a intentionally far reaching definition to include even stuff like hte moraues.

Legal texts tend to feature the minimum amount of verbosity possible. Yet there are not 2 but 4 things that can define you as human.

 

It comes down to two questions, actually:

1. Have they been humans before genetic procedure?

2. Are they human after the procedure?

 

1. People from the streets are humans. Clones of humans are (distinct) humans themself.

2. You can not loose your humanity due to the genetic procedure. A human turned into a mindless beast is still a human on par with someone that lost his reasoning to any of the many human realworld disabilities, but is physically powerfull.

By that logic you could only gain it from having human DNA added to your own.

 

Wheter you take human DNA and rewrite 95% of it, or add 5% human DNA to a various animal DNA before cloning the whole thing: You still end up with something living that has 5% human DNA, right?

Even if you do not allow the 95% non-human DNA to have no human rights, at least the 5% of human DNA should still have it. And hence the full resulting being.

 

But as a GM you can pretty much set the interpretation (or even the original wording) how you like it.

Maybe the "genetic constructs made of human stock" never made it into the text, because people thought giving Moreaus human rights should only apply if they were based heavi(er) of human DNA?

 

Also even if they have human rights, humans can be limited in thier legal independance too. Like everyone under 16-21 is.

And everyone with a serious mental disability or temproary mental condition.

[megaplayboy]

Yeah, I think a distinction between "human" and "nonhuman" seems like a stopgap measure which ultimately leaves one with the same problems. If only "humans" and "human-derived beings" are legal persons, that leaves a vast grouping of "not human" sapients. Undead have human dna and are human-derived beings; aliens are not. Created beings such as androids, robots and replicants would be divided into those with human-derived dna and those without.

[Lord Liaden]

I am not sure what a "mutate" is. Maybe it is a shorthand for mutant clones?

 

I believe Steve used the term as it's most often used in the mainstream comics (particularly Marvel) to distinguish between a human who was born with genetics giving him exceptional abilities and features, versus someone who acquired them at a later time through accident or deliberate change. For example, Captain America, Spider-Man, and the Hulk are all mutates.

[Lord Liaden]

Another point of Champions Universe reference: Dr. Silverback has dated a number of human women over the years. Some segments of society were scandalized by that, but as far as has been mentioned, no one has attempted to take any legal action to stop either party.

[bubba smith]

I believe Steve used the term as it's most often used in the mainstream comics (particularly Marvel) to distinguish between a human who was born with genetics giving him exceptional abilities and features, versus someone who acquired them at a later time through accident or deliberate change. For example, Captain America, Spider-Man, and the Hulk are all mutates.

I agree

[DShomshak]

Recognizing the legal personhood of the undead could raise issues with property rights. Can someone who is conscious, intelligent, but dead reclaim the property since disbursed to heirs? Perhaps decades ago? Centuries? I don't have Massey's or Steve Long's professional knowledge of law, but I suspect many judges would be reluctant to open that particular can of worms. (The "dead hand" principle of law assumes new force and meaning.)

 

One way out might be to say that a person who "comes back" in some form, after an extended period of death, is a person but legally distinct from the living person they were. But the legal cases to work out the details would likely be bizarre.

 

Dean Shomshak

[megaplayboy]

Recognizing the legal personhood of the undead could raise issues with property rights. Can someone who is conscious, intelligent, but dead reclaim the property since disbursed to heirs? Perhaps decades ago? Centuries? I don't have Massey's or Steve Long's professional knowledge of law, but I suspect many judges would be reluctant to open that particular can of worms. (The "dead hand" principle of law assumes new force and meaning.)

 

One way out might be to say that a person who "comes back" in some form, after an extended period of death, is a person but legally distinct from the living person they were. But the legal cases to work out the details would likely be bizarre.

 

Dean Shomshak

Even more complicated is when the spirit of a person who has died comes back...in the body of another.

[Lord Liaden]

And Dean created a character who does exactly that.

 

But I still hold that can be as much or as little an issue as a particular game group wants to make it. If situations stemming from such a ruling would detract from their fun, they should change or ignore it.

[DShomshak]

Oh, for sure. I don't imagine many Champions groups want to play through bizarre courtroom dramas. It can be fun background for people who like that sort of art-for-art's-sake worldbuilding, though. It's the sort of thing I might have mentioned back when I ran my old Seattle Sentinels campaigns: I would begin each session with brief news items about superheroic and villainous deeds from around the world, or current events given a Champions twist. We found it amusing.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Christopher]

Recognizing the legal personhood of the undead could raise issues with property rights. Can someone who is conscious, intelligent, but dead reclaim the property since disbursed to heirs? Perhaps decades ago? Centuries? I don't have Massey's or Steve Long's professional knowledge of law, but I suspect many judges would be reluctant to open that particular can of worms. (The "dead hand" principle of law assumes new force and meaning.)

 

One way out might be to say that a person who "comes back" in some form, after an extended period of death, is a person but legally distinct from the living person they were. But the legal cases to work out the details would likely be bizarre.

 

Dean Shomshak

Regarding Undead:

Yeah, undead personhood is a can of worms indeed. To quote the 2007 Schlocktoberfest.

"Narrator: The leaders of Nations did chortle and scoff at this legal loop-portal for beneath all their laws lay an unwritten clause. . . "No citizen may be immortal."

Narrator: But Petey, a gleam in his eye laid deep plans that bore fruit by and by with relative ease his gene-tweaked a disease^* that would make it so people can't die." (note that this is mostly a bad dream/horror imagiantion. But they DO end up releasing Immortality into the public much later).

"Nobody is immortal" is kinda a basic asumption all our laws are based on. Superhuman settings can break that.

 

Our current laws might actually be able to cope with people comming back to live. There is no clear definition of "being dead".

However you can be "declared legally dead" by the court. Usually people are declared dead by court if there is a valid proof of death by a medic that they were medically dead.

But almot as simply as you can be declared dead, you can be declared "actually still alive".

 

In the long history of humanity somewhere, somewhen a Judge must have said "Nobody could have survived that, so I declare him dead even without a body." Only to be proove wrong years later. There here are precedents for this:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2253/what-happens-when-someone-legally-dead-shows-up-alive

The article also mentions a relatively recent case with John Burney.

 

Even more complicated is when the spirit of a person who has died comes back...in the body of another.

The big problem would be to provide a "proof of identity". It is relatively easy to proof you are a living human being. But not that you are a specific human being if your body changed.

 

Actually with undead/immortals/reincarnation claims the mater is simple and might be covered mostly by our existing laws:

Somebody claims to be the reincarnation of Thomas Edison and want all the income from his patents back. Problems:

1, prooving he is it indeed, without genetic evidence

2. those patents were distributed among the heirs so long ago, they can no longer be reclaimed.

 

Somebody claims to be Edison that was Immortal and in hiding/Trapped in an alternate reality, timeloop or timejump/whatever and he has DNA proof. Problems:

1. If he is edisson, then who the hell is that corpse?

2. Prooving that he is not a clone.

3. Again the Inheritance was Distributed so long ago, they can no longer be reclaimed. If he was really immortal and in hiding he had ample opportunities to say "Hey, I am still alive". If he let it pass, that is his problem.

[Wardsman]

In my game the clones don't get rights, because of multiple attempts to take over the country/city/world with armies of clones. If the fingerprints are the same and the signature is the same, your clone can live your life with no one the wiser and there's no way to prove it. Therefore, if you're a clone, you have big problems. And yes, there are characters concealing their cloniness from the government.

Twins don't share fingerprints and I assume clones would not either.

 

On the Subject of the moreaus, What about real world efforts to get apes recognized as sentient beings?

  Chimpanzee ‘personhood’ case sows confusion

New York judge amends an order that animal rights group said granted a writ of habeas corpus to two research animals.

http://www.nature.com/news/chimpanzee-personhood-case-sows-confusion-1.17398

 

Legal Personhood for Apes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-wells/legal-personhood-for-apes_b_6378486.html