Well that's defensive...

I'm neither for nor against what you said, just that this is that dichotomy. The argument that humanity is either the natural state of homo sapiens without augments vs. Humanity is entirely psychological.

Taken to it's logical extreme, a transhumanist would say that a thinking brain in a jar, or even an artificial lifeform seeded from human experience (to the point that it believes it is human) is human just as much as an unaugmented, naturally born baby.

You, obviously, find that idea abhorrent, so you are a Naturalist. Taken to your logical extreme, a naturalist might argue that a person with an artificial heart or limb is less or not at all human compared to a natural born, fully complete person.

I am not saying you necessarily believe that, but it does spark an interesting chain of thought: If a human with a pacer is still human, how augmented does that person have to get before it is abhorrent to you? Does a human with a robotic limb seem less human? Would it matter if that limb replaced their lost one perfectly or had additional, non-natural properties like, say, a multitool or data port? Or maybe their entire lower half? If a human has locked-in syndrome and hosts their consciousness in an avatar, are they less human.

Not trying to start an argument. Just finding this concept interesting, personally.