[quote]Humans with polymelia, smaller brains, no capacity for articulate speech or abstract reasoning, or severe cases of scoliosis don't fit this definition. While you can call them defected, some would say that giving them that title is a form of morphological chauvinism.[/quote]
Those "some" you refer to are allowing their emotions and feelings to cloud their reality. If you are diagnosed medically lacking, are disabled, or are somehow biologically defective, you are just that. This does not mean you are somehow useless or not worthy of life, or inherently are a lesser person, but it is a fact that you are not the norm and are still graded against that. A few of us in this topic are medically classified as having some form of disability, yet here we are, still serving a purpose and still doing things in our lives, still off being individuals. Arguing "morphological chauvinism" is newspeak, plain and simple.

None the less, you have blatantly disregard several key areas to make your attempted point. The word choice and content of the cited paragraph is clear, as shown below:

[quote]Human being, a culture-bearing primate classified in the genus Homo, especially the species H. sapiens. Human beings are [b]anatomically similar[/b] and related to the great apes but are [b]distinguished[/b] by a more highly developed brain and a resultant [b]capacity[/b] for articulate speech and abstract reasoning. In addition, human beings [b]display[/b] a marked erectness of body carriage that frees the hands for use as manipulative members. [b]Some of these characteristics, however, are not entirely unique to humans.[/b] The gap in cognition, as in anatomy, between humans and the great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos) is much less than was once thought, as they have been shown to possess a variety of advanced cognitive abilities formerly believed to be restricted to humans.[/quote]

[quote]Yes, because you can predict the future so well, you know how the average person will respond to genemodding becoming mainstream. Let's ignore the fact that the breeding, selling, and consuming of genetically modified organisms has been approved in numerous countries, let alone that legal genemodding of human embryos has already happened in the UK, US, and China.[/quote]
Yes, you can get a blurry image of the future without a crystal ball. Try looking to the past and present first, then imagining thereafter through that combined lens. I am going to stay on the side of probability and median likelihood rather than plunge off into the pool of hypothetical "What if?" statements. I will [i]not[/i] argue this point with you again. I care nothing at all for the maybe when the probably is more pressing and likely. 

We are not living in a day and age where that level of genetic experimentation on humans is significant enough, not even close I add, to make such a profound change in what it means to be human. Furthermore, you seem to have blatantly ignored my reference to this as well, so do not act as though I did not somehow acknowledge your claim in anticipation thereof:

[quote]In fact, convincing the general population that genetic engineering would be safe at all would be the hardest battle one would fight; I refer to the prevalence of genetically modified organisms and that the common man is generally predispositioned against them, regardless if he actually knows they already make up a fair amount of his diet and some of his wear.[/quote]
Lastly:

[quote]So long as the ability to modify the underlying patterns that influence mate selection is rare or nonexistent, this might be true. But, in a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that trend may stop being universal. In vitro fertilization already bypasses the need for sex, and in vitro gametogenesis makes multiplex parenting a feasible strategy. There's nothing to indicate that humanity as a whole will forever be bound to traditional mating strategies.[/quote]
[i]"In a world where that ability exists and is easily accessible, it's quite possible that rend may stop being universal."[/i]

I need ask, what world do you see around you? The entire system has shifted over time, I have no doubt about that and you are acting as if I am for some reason, but you are attempting to make an extreme and baseless claim. Again, I will not even entertain that argument unless you have profound evidence to show that somehow people in this future you keep referring to are so far removed from their own humanity that this metric no longer applies. I further note that "in vitro fertilization" does not bypass the biological influences of sexual drive or sexuality [i]at all[/i]. They might not be physically having said children, but I strongly doubt people will suddenly up and surrender deep seated, subconscious, primitive, mammalian mate determining qualities.

In the future platinum hair might be viewed as taboo and all people desire is curly, rich, midnight colored hair. That I could believe, any number of reasons that might be credible, but I am not about to be convinced that the majority will ever dive off into something as insane as adding or removing digits, limbs or tails, cat ears, hooves, et cetera. Odds strongly favor against that to be the outcome.

Even today in what is considered a "progressive culture" a fair amount of people hold that tattoos are still somehow taboo, even if only one. Body modification just takes that one step further until your concentric circles reach a point where the everyman will not tolerate it at all.