If it allows you to restore lost or severely mutilated limbs, then of course for. I will even say more, many states will do everything to develop this direction because it will allow it to be used for military purposes. And just imagine - the number of disabled war veterans can greatly decrease.
I have a positive attitude to any kind of improvement in the human body. Provided, of course, that there are adequate medical side effects. I am not an idealist in the sense that in the future humanity must overcome all diseases and become, if not immortal, then live for 300-500 years. No, not necessarily, but by itself, I want a significant improvement in medicine, making it more accessible to ordinary people.
I see three potential problems:
Potential side effects that we didn’t know about and / or cannot control. Nowadays advanced technologies work at the level of nanorobots and genetic engineering, and there it is unrealistic to calculate all the possible risks, and their harm can be deadly. On the other hand, one cannot say that modern medicine is so reliable and harmless, by no means. Therefore, if humanity does not screw up on a large scale, then everything should move for the better, towards progress. There is a potential risk of falling into those horror stories that we see in science fiction films, such as worldwide sterility, or under the control of genetic modifications. But I hope that in practice scientists will be more prudent.
Social stratification. In fact, it already blooms and smells, but advanced medicine has always served the rich and made them even more privileged than the poor. Could it be that the rich will live for several hundred years, and the poor will still be treated with aspirin? Maybe, but unlikely. Progress, whatever one may say, but to one degree or another gives access to new technologies to all sectors of society.
Philosophical and ethical dilemma. Probably, this is more of a problem for devout people and government officials. authorities who are now fighting around the world for the purity of morals. But I am sure that sooner or later, the ban on experiments on humans and various genetic modifications will be lifted. Even if this prohibition is in effect now, in medicine, the direction of studying which genes it is useful to turn on / off for greater health of children, even starting from intrauterine development, is very popular. One way or another, but the evidence base in this area is growing at 7-mile steps.
I agree that the problem of self-identification can be very acute in the case of artificial body enhancements, which is beautifully shown in Technolise and the game "Deus Ex". However, in the case of biological regeneration, I think that this question will only affect the most ardent champions of morality and "leave everything as God gave."
Your question is very amusingly worded) "How do you feel about the fact that it will be easier for you to replace some organ" And I can not even imagine arguments against what you describe.
I have a positive attitude.