This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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.
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. 188.8.131.52 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
I have removed the following content: "In March 2008 Sandberg and Natasha Vita-More gave a joint talk on morphological freedom in Second Life." 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)