One more small bit on normal:
Some bioethicists who worry about enhancement don’t worry about normalization; some embrace enhancement precisely because they think it offers a way out of normalization.
Neither position makes sense insofar as enhancement and normalization are linked.
The enhancement-worriers fret about new techs or practices taking us away from a baseline normal human, yet don’t wonder about the creation of that baseline normal human. The enhancement- embracers think other-than-normal is just dandy, yet don’t consider that enhancement can lead to new normals.
This is not, I must say, the position of all those who write on enhancement and normalization; one of the things I like about Parens’s book Enhancing Human Traits is that it includes plenty o’ pieces by those who weigh both enhancement and normalization.
Me, I think the real issue is normalization, such that my concerns about enhancement are precisely that they might become the new norm. Enhancement leads to questions; normalization feeds off forgetting.
I think forgetting is a bigger problem for humans than questioning.
AbsurdBeats 
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/09/180875256/the-woman-upstairs-a-saga-of-anger-and-thwarted-ambition
http://www.thestory.org/stories/2013-05/invisible-girls
I had to do a double-take on “Erin Manning”—Canadian philosopher, not American Catholic blogger. . . .
Heh – So I wonder if the enhancers think that Lance Armstrong is cool, because he was more “enhanced” than normal…
[…] Can you hear me, cont.One more small bit on normal: Some bioethicists who worry about enhancement don’t worry about normalization; some embrace enhancement precisely because they think it offers a way out of normalization. Neither position makes sense insofar as enhancement and normalization are linked. […]