[Jack Black]

I totally disagree. Maybe the religious right would hold out for some fundamentalist interpretation and "soul test". But I would certainly support full rights for Replicants. I mean the whole point of the last scene was the Rutgar *was* a self-aware, beauty appreciating individual intensly aware of his own mortality.

That is far and away enough to qualify for civil rights.

[JamesP81]

Maybe the religious right would hold out for some fundamentalist interpretation and "soul test". But I would certainly support full rights for Replicants.

Speaking as someone from the religious right, I seriously doubt that there are many on the religious right that would oppose those civil rights.

[NoStaplesPlease]

The more I think about it, the more I think it would be inevitable that civil rights would be granted to such automatons. And my canine analogy is probably inadequate. So, ok, we're going to grant rights to these machines because it feels right.

I still worry that this is the logic of PETA, that because a chicken can register pain, it's illegal to kill them.

Or it's going to require a heretofore unheralded reconsideration of rights. Human rights for non-humans. Are we sure about this? Part of me thinks we will never build such machines -- or at least not in great numbers -- simply to avoid this. And do we really need machines that seem human?