Talk:Morphological freedom

message: I'm removed the following text from the article until we determine its appropriateness:
:Some critics, such as Wesley J. Smith, argue that no such right exists, or could exist, because it is incompatible with the notion of human equality and human dignity. He argues that a society that accepts morphological freedom, therefore also by implication, necessarily accepts that some people are "more equal than others," and do not have value "simply, merely because they are human." Although supporters of morphological freedom would agree with the second statement, they would argue that it does not imply that there is no moral worth whatsoever in human persons, but merely that such moral worth is not inherent exclusively to humans, and that all thinking, feeling creatures, irrespective of all other considerations, can have each their own worth, on their own terms.
We need to determine whether or not Smith is specifically attacking morphological freedom as defined in this article or the so-called right to human enhancement as defined by transhumanists. To learn the difference between the two, read Carrico's essay Modification, Not Enhancement; Consent, Not Consensus; Prosthetic Self-Determination, Not Eugenics --Loremaster 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon review, I believe you are correct in the removal of this segment. I recall Smith once saying that he doesn't mind the "Catman," though he hurriedly injects that he feels sorry for him, but that he would deny the right exists to create "Kittenboy." This would seem to indicate that Smith's objections fall more fully under the topic of "enhancement" than morphological freedom. 216.129.211.105 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I have no problem with adding a criticism section to the article as long as the critic we cite is explicitly attacking the concept of morphological freedom. --Loremaster 18:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I have removed the following content: "In March 2008 Sandberg and Natasha Vita-More gave a joint talk on morphological freedom in Second Life.[4]" It offers no value to the article or to the reader and lacks any degree of specificity. Unless someone can amend the removed content to include information regarding what the talk was about, and why it's relevant to this article, I feel as though this should remain omitted. MichaelKovich (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. --Loremaster (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing content

message: The article current doesn't correctly cite the current usage of the term. Nick's article certainly refers to the concept and I think indeed More 1993 was first in using it, but they do not use the rights framework I introduced in the 2001 talk/essay (which appears to have defined the usage since then). My suggestion is that the reprint of the essay "Sandberg, A. (2001). Morphological freedom–Why we not just want it, but need it. The transhumanist reader: Classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future, 56-64." is used as an extra reference in the intro paragraph - that fits with the current text and is a citeable academic reference. Since I happen to be personally involved I hope other editors can judge if this makes sense and do the edit. Anders Sandberg (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Original reference

message: I found a couple of sources that I think have a place here but I currently do not have access to the full articles. The abstracts give just enough info to let me know they're probably useful. If anyone has access to these journals here are the links
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00437.x
https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article-abstract/35/6/670/968552
Cheers. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources 

message: In February 2023, @2603:8080:4900:CBB1:BF62:5BBA:A0A:773F made a number of changes to this page:
- Inserting an unsourced interjection about mentioned topics being considered heresies by Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII, which has no demonstrated connection to Dale Carrico or the other claims (I don't believe Carrico is a Catholic scholar or otherwise cites Catholic doctrine in support of his claims?)
- Prepending "human" to the word "person," which doesn't seem relevant especially given morphological freedom is associated with posthumanism—by its very nature it applies even to persons that may not be considered human. I'd like a citation or other explanation for this addition if it's readded, preferably
- Changing neutral pronouns to gendered ones, against MOS:GENDER
- Editing existing language to be less neutral (particularly changing "proposed" to "alleged"), against WP:IMPARTIAL
Given the pattern of vandalism by this user on other pages I'm going to undo these particular changes even though they might only be considered disruptive or misguided. One change, replacing "their god" with a link to the page for God, seems worthy of keeping. If the first two edits are properly integrated into the article and cited/supported, that'd also be good, but presently I have no reason to believe these were made in good faith given the other edits. NoelleLavenza (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting disruptive edits by suspected vandal