Thanks guys for figuring out where I was heading, despite not putting the words together clearly. I sometimes wonder whether I’m sentient or merely think I am. But yeah, where I was trying to be difficult was by presenting a critter that is at least half human genetically, behaviorally, and potentially. Something not fully capable of functioning independently in a human (or chimp) society, but human enough to be able to say, “I’d rather have dinner with you than be your dinner”. It occurs to me a gotcha for such a creature would be the offspring of a humanzee pairing has a chance of being 100% chimp, or 100% human, or anywhere else along that continuum (I have no idea if the real world chromosome mechanics would actually allow for that, and the odds against it would be astronomical); and that multiple generation pairings with humans or chimps would dilute one of the species’ characteristics, nudging the new offspring closer to one end of the human/not human spectrum.
Ultimately I think this question comes from my inner eugenicist (whom I hold in low regard and keep confined to the more remote and unpleasant parts of my psyche) who would apply the findings to humans of differing abilities. As foolsguinea observed before even I did, my darker side wonders whether a just society could allow rights & protections according to ability. Having a rather slow-witted 18 year-old young man in my charge at the moment, it would be to the detriment of all were I to encourage him to go live on his own. He simply doesn’t have the brain power to function at even a basic level of autonomy. And yet, he can vote, buy a firearm, drive, and get up to all sorts of things which are not problematic for neurotypicals with foresight, personal restraint, and self-awareness. Seems like it would be fairer to him and to society to lock him into indefinite legal minor status. No adult rights, but no adult obligations either; and in any event protected as children are.