Human augmentation is morally permissible

To be clear, I will not be arguing that all human augmentation (HA from now on for convenience) is not morally permissable, merely that "any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means, [including] the use of technological means to select or alter human characteristics and capacities, whether or not the alteration results in characteristics and capacities that lie beyond the existing human range" is not necessarily always morally permissible. This is going to be a pretty vague argument, and that's largely due to the fact that we, by definition, have no idea what we're talking about. Human augmentation is a very wide field with a wide range of unknown beneficial discoveries, negative consequences, and risks.Risks are a large point on which my arguments will rest. It has been said that, in the act of trying to cure a disease, we might end up making it stronger, resulting in powerful, highly contaigous strains that are immune to all antibiotics and could possibly wipe out the human race, start a zombie apocalypse, or worse. I'm sort of joking, but even if a less powerful, but still notable, strain were to arise, we could lose a serious amount of human life, much more than we would have if we had been super-careful or just left it alone. This reasoning is based on strains of infections and diseases which are immune to penicillinand/or other antibiotics, and therefore harder to treat, and this is due to our own interference [1]. Another concern is that Pro's definition of HA does not imply consent in any way. In an extreme example, Pro's definition could include murder in the form of ritual killing/mummification/whatever, as long as the killer is attempting to achieve something currently unachievable by the human body (such as stretching the researcher's ex from 6 Main St. to 394 Main St.). I'm probably being pretty nipicky, and I'm sure Pro didn't intend his definition to include giving someone fatal levels of water hemlock to improve their resistance to coniine, but it raises an important question regarding what counts as consent. To give consent, a being must be conscious, well-informed, and positive in their stance, but is anyone well-informed about HA? Should the reasserchers be held accountable if they withhold treatment information from the test subject, which results in death or serious injury? Should the test subject be spared from having to know all of the technical details about the experiment that are necessary in order to be well-informed? How sure do the researchers have to be that the experimentation will not result in loss of life? Another, perhaps more reasonable, line of logic is that Con's definition definitely includes cosmetic surgery. While a very reasonable argument can be made for HA for the purposes of stopping down's syndrome and colorblindness, for example, is it really morally permissible to risk life and limb, quite literally, for the purpose of cosmetic betterment? There are certainly people who will sign up to have their bodies mutilated to have breasts the size of watermelons, or to have facial perfection at the cost of being able to breathe comfortably, as there are already people getting skin cancer from tanning booths. But should we really let people destroy their bodies like that when they and the researchers don't know the consequences? One could make the argument that we should let people screw up their bodies however they please, but when the government is paying to fix their bodies through state-funded health insurance, should we really sacrifice taxpayer dollars for the purpose of fixing the effects of a research team trying to give a news anchor wider hips? Pro's reasoning may be somewhat sound, but his definition certainly needs to be tightened, possibly to a level that is not possible, given what we know about HA and its possible effects on human welfare.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;