system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[Deus Ex / Ghost in the Shell] What's the argument against cybernetics?

This might be a terrible place to ask. It may be suited for a more philosophical subreddit, but I can't think of one that blends philosophy with science fiction.

I know Deus Ex and GitS ask deep questions about cybernetics and AI. However, I feel like the nuanced debate has gone over my head. In Deus Ex (at least Human Revolution), the public is split 50/50 over augmentations. Bystander will give their opinions why they love/hate about them. They can replace missing limbs, but on the other hand, they're expensive, separate the rich from the poor and the augmented from the non-augmented.

However, those issues aren't specific to, or the fault of augments. Cheap medicine for malaria and diarrhoea haven't made their way to Africa and permanently solved those issues. The other argument that it takes away humanity is subjective. A person with cybernetic arms and legs would still in my eyes be a human. It seems logical that it would extend to cybernetic torsos, and heads. 

In GitS, cybernetics are accepted by everyone. While Motoko's cybernetic body is extensive, even in that universe, there's no question over whether or not she should have it there. I also think that so long as the brain is organic, she is human. If modifications were made to her cortex, making her think 50x faster than a regular brain, I would still classify her as human. The film makes it clear that she's a human brain in a cyborg body, as opposed to an AI. 

If that's the case, where is the argument that humans who augment themselves with cybernetics are creating a new race of humans. A person isn't born with cybernetics, and they don't pass it on to their children. I would think that genetic modification, going beyond disease removal, would be a much bigger deal. Even then, disease removal through things like selective abortions are controversial. However, from Halo to Warhammer, genetic modifications is lauded, seen as creating the ultimate soldiers, which players look up to and aspire to be.

You could debate whether an AI is a sentient being and a person. I could see it as sentient, but there is a clear distinction between it and a human. The same can be done for replicants, although the line is so thin I couldn't even distinguish between them and humans. But I can't see the arguments in GitS, and especially DE about why cybernetic implants make you less of a human, or how having a human brain in a cybernetic body questions our humanity. I can see why some may be upset, but I can't see more people crusading against it than say, stem cells.
gpt
There's few common arguments against augmentations.

1. Unnatural - messing with the common order, God's will, ect

2. Only for the rich - out of reach for anyone not willing to sell themselves body and mind to a megacorp

3. Human weapons - they're building supersoldiers to take our jobs!

Those are the most common arguments, and most anti-tech groups blend in a bit of both of all three.