From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Mar 18 2002 - 23:21:39 MST
Your response doesn't seem to be quite what is going on or at
least it doesn't seem to address what I was attempting to get
at. If doctors were being regulated to only necessary surgery
then liposuction and plastic surgery would not be performed for
as many reasons and as often as today as someone else mentioned.
No, the underlying goal, whether voiced or not, is to avoid
"unfair" multiplication of ability when it is applied to
artificial enhancements. In any case, if we want to augment
freely then we must fight for the right to do so or sidestep
such regulations.
If your augmentation is done without surgery then it may be
confiscated as "mere property" as in the case of Steve Mann.
Also, many types of augmentation likely can not be done as well
without implantation.
- samantha
Louis Newstrom wrote:
> From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
>
>>Why should there be any necessity in a free country to convince
>>anyone that what you wanted in the way of augementation,
>>implanted or not, is "necessary"? By what right does any
>>government get to legislate how bright or capable their
>>citizen's make themselves in any capacity or the means they use
>>to do so?
>>
>
> Actually, I don't think anyone was thinking of MY rights. They were
> legislating what surgeries the DOCTOR can ethically perform. Cutting and
> sewing human parts (or even the possession of a human part) is very much
> regulated in the US.
>
> If my augmentation could be done without surgery, I don't think I would have
> had any problems.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:01 MST