The following is an excerpt from the GLMZ Ethics Forum's annual debate, 2225. Topic: 'Resolved: the unaugmented human body has intrinsic moral value that augmentation diminishes.'

FOR THE MOTION — Dr. Patience Nguyen-Strand:
'SNT makes it possible to feel chrome as if it were flesh. That is exactly the problem. It removes the distinction between what you are and what you have purchased. A wealthy person can buy themselves a body that runs faster, sees further, thinks quicker, and feels completely natural doing so. An unaugmented person is not merely less capable — they are, in the eyes of the augmented, incomplete. SNT has created a class system written into the body itself.'

AGAINST THE MOTION — Dr. Emeka Larsson-Kato:
'The argument for bodily purity has been used throughout history to oppress people. Vaccines were impure. Blood transfusions were impure. Organ transplants were impure. Every generation designates some medical technology as a threat to human integrity, and every subsequent generation wonders what the fuss was about. SNT is a tissue. It bonds implants to bodies. It does not diminish humanity — it expands what humanity can do and feel.'

FOR THE MOTION — Dr. Nguyen-Strand:
'The difference between a vaccine and a cybernetic arm is that the vaccine does not have a subscription fee. SNT degrades. You must pay to remain who you have become. The expansion of human capability that my colleague celebrates is rented capability. You do not own your augmented self. You lease it from Cortex Dynamics at Φ500,000 per renewal.'

AGAINST THE MOTION — Dr. Larsson-Kato:
'That is an argument against the economics of SNT, not against augmentation itself. If SNT were free and permanent, would you still object?'

FOR THE MOTION — Dr. Nguyen-Strand:
'...I would object less. But I would still ask: when you can no longer distinguish between yourself and your purchases, what remains of you that is not for sale?'

[The motion was defeated 58-42. The margin has narrowed every year for the past decade.]