Could they simply be declared emancipated? Or if the weight of the word doesn't fit, been said to have been granted manumission?
The concept of emancipation meaning someone who's freed to become a member of society has been around since at least the mid-nineteenth (I'm sure earlier, but right now can't place more than the Emancipation Proclamation). They wouldn't need to be "minors-but-full-citizens" if their actual age isn't the reason they were declared wards of the state. They could simply have been declared wards of the state due to not being considered competent as adults, and then released once they were.
There's a section in a book on Victorian childhood that looks interesting, for its observation of how the practical reality of life might have contrasted with the abstract age of majority.
This summary notes that orphans in educational schools were expected to start work at age 17; this one points out how rare being put in an orphanage (or even a workhouse) could be. If all the artificially created people are declared
( ... )
That assumes a marvelous flexible society that is willing to quickly propound new rules for new situations and does not prefer to try every conceivable trick to get it covered under the old rules. Most societies prefer the second route, actually.
("Emancipation" is straight from ancient Rome and so the term is no problem.)
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear--I didn't mean to suggest a flexible society, only one that was hesitant to extend the status of "human children" to "ignorant artificially created beings". Which is why I rambled (unclearly, I see that now) in the direction of there being ways for adults to be considered incompetent, too, and being able to prove themselves fit to join society.
But yeah; your point about old rules sticking around is well taken. :) Sorry I couldn't be more helpful (although thank you, as your post has gotten me thinking about the various criteria for competency in societies, which is interesting in that weird, brain-tickling sort of way...).
Well, they are under the age of majority. In fact, they are none of them seven years old, which would raise the question of why they wouldn't be considered minors.
Could simply be because "minors" is a term used for normal humans. *shrugs*
People have no problem recognizing that other things grow up faster, or can be treated differently[1]. There's a fair amount of historical precedent for even normal humans from different countries not being treated as citizens or (if children) as minors who deserve protection, so it's plausible to conceive of things that look like but clearly aren't normal humans being treated as "other". Heck, if the only difference in their treatment is that they're brought up by the state until they're functioning adults, it's a pretty good outcome for them.
ETA: but this is now going into how people may treat people, not the history of legal fictions, and is wandering afield from your initial question. I do apologize. --- [1] The cynic in me says people are *way* too good at recognizing that those identified as "other" should be treated differently, and then clinging to the concept like a panicked limpet.
The concept of emancipation meaning someone who's freed to become a member of society has been around since at least the mid-nineteenth (I'm sure earlier, but right now can't place more than the Emancipation Proclamation). They wouldn't need to be "minors-but-full-citizens" if their actual age isn't the reason they were declared wards of the state. They could simply have been declared wards of the state due to not being considered competent as adults, and then released once they were.
There's a section in a book on Victorian childhood that looks interesting, for its observation of how the practical reality of life might have contrasted with the abstract age of majority.
This summary notes that orphans in educational schools were expected to start work at age 17; this one points out how rare being put in an orphanage (or even a workhouse) could be. If all the artificially created people are declared ( ... )
Reply
("Emancipation" is straight from ancient Rome and so the term is no problem.)
Reply
But yeah; your point about old rules sticking around is well taken. :) Sorry I couldn't be more helpful (although thank you, as your post has gotten me thinking about the various criteria for competency in societies, which is interesting in that weird, brain-tickling sort of way...).
Reply
Reply
People have no problem recognizing that other things grow up faster, or can be treated differently[1]. There's a fair amount of historical precedent for even normal humans from different countries not being treated as citizens or (if children) as minors who deserve protection, so it's plausible to conceive of things that look like but clearly aren't normal humans being treated as "other". Heck, if the only difference in their treatment is that they're brought up by the state until they're functioning adults, it's a pretty good outcome for them.
ETA: but this is now going into how people may treat people, not the history of legal fictions, and is wandering afield from your initial question. I do apologize.
---
[1] The cynic in me says people are *way* too good at recognizing that those identified as "other" should be treated differently, and then clinging to the concept like a panicked limpet.
Reply
Leave a comment