Re: Banning morphological freedom

From: R. Coyote (coyyote@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 12:04:33 MST

  • Next message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: Banning morphological freedom"

    The BOR is not a declaration of positive rights, and it does not say "and
    that's all" at the end.

    it is a limitation on government power.

    we do not need to have the right to morphological freedom explicitly
    declared, we only need to assert it.

    It appears that this proposed "law" only limits what a Doctor can do, not
    what the recipient can do.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Ramez Naam" <mez@apexnano.com>
    To: <extropians@extropy.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 9:23 AM
    Subject: RE: Banning morphological freedom

    > From: Anders Sandberg [mailto:asa@nada.kth.se]
    > > Here is somthing to sink your teeth into:
    > >
    > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0303300294mar30.story
    > > On legislature's plate: Banning forked tongues
    >
    > Sadly in the US there's no right to morphological freedom (or any
    > umbrella right to freedom or self-determination that would cover
    > this). This sort of knee-jerk political response is just going to
    > become more common as major body modifications become possible.
    >
    > mez
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 12:11:50 MST