Badger Posted October 2, 2017 Report Share Posted October 2, 2017 They are re-animated (i.e., resurrected) humans. There is no legal precedent for such beings, so you're going to have a hard time finding applicable interpretations of case law that will help you here. I think that any court in the US would get stuck in the same "they're sub-human" quagmire that denied rights to non-caucasians for centuries in this country. Granted, in Shelley's book the monster is incredibly intelligent, and except for being potentially immortal, he is as alive and sentient as you or I. But the whole basis for the "horror" of this scenario is the manner in which he was "reborn", and so pretty much every religious person on the planet would object to Man Playing God, and would work mightily to deny such a creature any rights whatsoever. If you want a comedy movie take on this subject, go watch Ted 2, where the same legal obstacles were directed at Ted, a sentient teddy bear who wanted human rights, and wanted to redraw the legal boundaries around sentience instead of biology. I don't know, religious people would object to Man playing God, but I dont think it would be universal in punishing a creature who had no control over his creation. In that hgypothesis it isn't any different than clones at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.