Are Replicants androids, cyborgs, or genetically engineered humans?

They are not humans, they are not grown, they are manufactured. They were designed to be used as slaves, so it didn’t “become legal”; it was never illegal in the first place.

But that is why they were to be used on distant planets, not on earth.

In the book, they’re referred to as “Androids”. The term “Replicants” was made up by the film director’s daughter.

Since Philip K. Dick died several weeks before the original film premiered (and was only mostly ok with it), we’ll never have his answer as to whether he’d approve of Rachel conceiving a child.

This question takes on quite a different meaning when it’s misread as I did as “Republicans.”

I too suffered a Freudian slip on first reading the question. My take from the book and the first movie as well is that the androids are manufactured, then “programmed” to replicate human emotions and behavior. The first movie makes it clear that there are entire districts in Los Angeles with mom and pop boutique businesses manufacturing “parts” for artificial animals with fake creatures cheaper and more commonplace than the rare and nearly priceless real ones. In the movie, Rachel is an advanced experimental creationof Tyrell’s genius. A sort of one of a kind sophisticated pet. And apparently she comes without an expiration date and has in addition another much more dangerous attribute unique to her alone. It is revealed in the second film She is clearly an illegal and dangerous machine that cannot be permitted to circulate in the society at large. I saw the second movie last week, and am eager to discuss it here. But I must wait until the bulk of us have a chance to see it. The second film does a good job in continuing the conversation about just what is it that’s required to qualify as a human being.