If we clone neanderthals, will they have legal rights?

You don't know that. What if they are about as intelligent as we are ?
And, naturally, they would grow up around humans.

They had larger cranial capacities than us so that's quite possible.
 
You don't know that. What if they are about as intelligent as we are ?
And, naturally, they would grow up around humans.

Well, knowing America today......we don't know alot of things knowing how we are wasting money on SOME things we dont even need
 
Well, I think they wouldnt have legal rights...Due to the fact the "Neanderthalls" wouldnt know what legal rights where.
How do you know this? Are you saying a Neanderthal is incapable of understanding the concept, even after being educated? Or are they incapable of being educated in the first place? Furthermore, just because someone doesn't know what "legal rights" are, does that mean they are de facto not entitled to those rights? What do you think "Miranda" is all about?

In fact, what the f**k are you trying to say here at all? Do you even know?
 
They wouldn't have ANY rights - if they're cloned they'd be the property of the corporation that "grew" them, in all likelihood.
Up until the Neanderthal Liberation Front activists got to work.
 
They wouldn't have ANY rights - if they're cloned they'd be the property of the corporation that "grew" them, in all likelihood.
Up until the Neanderthal Liberation Front activists got to work.

Probably true.
 
They had larger cranial capacities than us so that's quite possible.


Basically, we (none of us) really know. It would depend on how their observed behavior after we actually manage to "clone" them. If they turn out to have nearly the same "self awareness" and other concepts of Homo Sapiens, then they deserve equivalent "human rights". On the other hand, perhaps they will be more similar to other species of animals existing today, and would be deserving of the same sort of protection we afford those animals. Or somewhere in between. Now, we can always debate whether today's animals deserve more "rights", but that is a separate can of worms.

Bottom line, I think we would have to wait and see. If they are human - human rights. If they are animals - animal rights. If they are something in between, well, we will have to make something up... ;)
 
They had larger cranial capacities than us so that's quite possible.

Yep, not to say that brain cavity volume has any direct link to intelligence, but they were pretty closely related to us, so I don't see why they shouldn't at least be as smart as a 12 year old (I just pulled that out of my ass ;)).
 
Probably true.

What a hoot. If nothing else, the whole thing would be quite a show, venturing into entirely new territory legally. Should be quite entertaining, when and if it comes to pass... :D
 
Yep, not to say that brain cavity volume has any direct link to intelligence, but they were pretty closely related to us, so I don't see why they shouldn't at least be as smart as a 12 year old (I just pulled that out of my ass ;)).

You pulled a 12 year old out of your ass???? :eek: :eek:
 
They wouldn't have ANY rights - if they're cloned they'd be the property of the corporation that "grew" them, in all likelihood.
Up until the Neanderthal Liberation Front activists got to work.

Well, if those who cloned them dropped them off in North Korea, they wouldn't have any legal or human rights at all.

And don't forget, over half of the existing human population on Earth right now don't even have basic human and legal rights. So ...would "we" give the cloned Neanders human and legal rights even though all those other humans still don't have the same rights?

We must, absolutely MUST, use a little perspective when discussing this or any other such issue. The universal "we" or "they" is mostly meaningless in the context of international law and politics.

Baron Max
 
Neanderthals are a separate species from humans, though. So why operate under that assumption?

actually mrow i am pritty sure i read that they either are or should be a SUB species. Ie homo sapian neanderthal (which makes us homo sapian sapian, seriously wise man, what arrogance)
 
actually mrow i am pritty sure i read that they either are or should be a SUB species. Ie homo sapian neanderthal (which makes us homo sapian sapian, seriously wise man, what arrogance)

Which either way would still make them a different species.
 
no actually it wouldnt thats the point. We would be a SUBSPIECIES.

Put it this way, if species are cousins subspecies would be siblings.

They are close enough to us that we could interbreed
 
no actually it wouldnt thats the point. We would be a SUBSPIECIES.

Put it this way, if species are cousins subspecies would be siblings.

They are close enough to us that we could interbreed

Well chimps are close enough that we could interbreed as well, but the offspring wouldn't be viable. By subspecies then, do you mean a breed of sorts? Such as dalmations versus poodles?
 
i honestly dont know if dogs are concidered subspecies or not. I would ASSUME they are because they are all closly enough in relation that they can interbreed and aparently so are we to Neanderthals. BTW i ment viable offspring, actually there is some suggestion that alot of us (if not all) carry ancestory to Neanderthals as well as moden man
 
Which either way would still make them a different species.

No, it wouldn't ;)
IF Neanderthals would be classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, while Humans are (and this is true btw) Homo sapiens sapiens, both would belong to the species Homo sapiens in the same way that Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis would belong to the same genus.
 
Well chimps are close enough that we could interbreed as well, but the offspring wouldn't be viable. By subspecies then, do you mean a breed of sorts? Such as dalmations versus poodles?

Well, here's the the deal. Neanderthals are a member of the genus Homo, right ?
Now look up the definition of 'human'. Actually, don't. I already did that for you ;) See post 13.
 
Back
Top