The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol.
That's a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.
And you've managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn't actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.
So i'll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.
My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.
I wasn't comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that's a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.
I was using it as an example as to why "god's design" is a poor argument.
As it seems "god's design" wasn't an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.
I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it's many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).
I'm not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.
In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.
As you've stated you're not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.
Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.