Re: the "not to be born" right

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Sat Nov 25 2000 - 11:50:51 MST

Anders Sandberg asks,
> ...Many anti-enhancement people base their position on their
> view that prenatal enhancements are against the integrity and dignity
> of the person. What would a transhumanist defence of such enhancements
> be in terms of our views of personal integrity and human dignity? And
> reverse, from these views, what would not be allowed?

I would defend enhancements of whatever kind on the grounds that they
increase personal integrity and expand human dignity. Because that's what
enhancements do. They make things better, more beautiful, more free, more
excellent, healthier, more competent. Anyone who would argue against such
things simply and plainly does not understand the meaning of the word

Reasonable people would not allow modifications or bio-engineering which
does not result in the enhancement (IOW improvement) of human life. BTW,
any society that can tolerate such an ugly and stupid procedure as
circumcision definitely has no business criticizing prenatal enhancements
which would help rather than hurt the innocent. Smacks of the pot calling
the kettle black. After all, few things are more against the integrity and
dignity of a person than mutilating their genitals without their
permission (and without anesthetics).

Stay hungry,

--J. R.
3M TA3

"It's not your vote that counts,
it's who counts your vote."
--Al Gore
(Or was it Joseph Stalin... Hitler? Oh well, one of those socialists.)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:31 MDT