Wired Says ‘Preferring Biological Children Is Immoral,’ Touts Transhumanism And Depopulation

Popular mainstream publication Wired published a bold headline two weeks ago claiming “Preferring Biological Children Is Immoral.” Furthermore, the opening excerpt reads: “Most people say they want their kids to be their own genetic offspring—but such a desire is in conflict with other evolving values around parenting and family.”

Leo Kim for Wired notes that having children that are biologically your own has been the accepted and expected norm in society, adding that “this was thought to provide a healthy foundation for growth and self-actualization.” But, according to Kin, this is no longer acceptable, but transhumanism, gene-editing, and selective breeding should be embraced. Below are some of the highlights and salient points of contention raised:

---

Yet this prioritization of biological inheritance (“biologism,” as some call it) has recently become unsettled. Previously, if you gave birth to a child, it was a simple certainty that they were genetically related to you—the biological fact was inextricably linked to their existence. Over the past few decades, however, practices like gestational surrogacy have shown that this need not be the case. Evolving family structures, advancements in fertilization and embryonic screening technologies, and changing moral sentiments have all contributed to a growing reevaluation of this deceptively simple preference. Once we begin to disentangle what is truly possible from what we simply assumed was necessary, we are forced to look at this “natural” preference with fresh eyes.

[…] In fact, many of the arguments that might be made in favor of this prejudice run precisely counter to other changing attitudes toward parenting, family, and the role of biology in culture.

AT THE HEART of biologism is the question of whether it is permissible to consider a child’s genetics when deciding to become a parent. Our improving ability to genetically screen embryos and the continued development of assisted reproductive technologies have enabled prospective parents to assess potential embryos for hundreds of traits—and forced us to revisit a wariness around biological considerations in reproductive decisions caused by the horrors of state-sponsored eugenics. Though many of the genetic conditions being screened for are fatal, we’ve begun to expand the net to encompass features like deafness and dwarfism (and despite skepticism about the possibility of eventually testing for traits like IQ and height, the desire is certainly there). All of this has given a new sense of urgency to the thorny issues regarding how, and to what extent, biology should play into a decision to have a child—as it’s clear that these considerations will play some role in the future.

A few core beliefs have already solidified. Namely, we have converged on the idea that if biology is to be a factor at all, it should only be considered insofar as it prevents harm and suffering. As Laura Hercher puts it in the MIT Technology Review, “public opinion on the use of assisted reproductive technology consistently draws a distinction between preventing disease and picking traits.” Studies, like one conducted by the Johns Hopkins Genetics and Public Policy Center, seem to indicate that this intuition is broadly shared. Anything more than this minimal scope and we begin to veer into the gnarled territory of gene fetishes and optimization logics well trodden by eugenicists.

If we accept this argument, then the relevant question becomes whether a child’s genetic provenance—their biological resemblance to a parent—prevents suffering. We can quickly begin to sense the difficulty in justifying that it does. It’s unclear what sort of negative outcome is being avoided by opting for a genetically related child. This biological fact appears largely irrelevant to their well-being, especially when compared to those features (e.g. Tay-Sachs, Huntington’s) that we do deem permissible for consideration. Plotted against this scale, prioritizing relatedness appears far closer to selecting for an arbitrary feature like height than selecting against a deadly degenerative neural disease.

[…] This biological desire reinforces norms that we are explicitly aiming to dismantle. It places undue emphasis on genetic similarity as a criterion for our ethical relations, running against our stated hopes to expand our nets of responsibility and care beyond the borders of nation, ethnicity, culture, and even species. Instead, it normalizes a certain conception of family that reinforces these parochial categories. It’s for a similar reason that bioethicists like Hane Htut Maung have pushed back against the desire for prioritizing racial sameness when selecting gametes for assisted reproduction, arguing that this practice ultimately perpetuates a “particular normative conception of family that places undue emphasis on resemblances based on racialized traits.” Using things like biological similarity to ground a parent-child relationship deconstructs the notion that parents should love their children unconditionally, undermining what the scholar Rosalind McDougall calls the “parental virtue of acceptance.”

Moreover, the argument that this genetic tie has unique intrinsic value because it is “natural” steps into particularly dangerous territory. It’s precisely this argument that has been used for decades to discredit same-sex couples as unfit to be parents.

[…] Perhaps the most extreme form of this argument comes from the anti-natalists, who roughly hold that not only should we adopt when we can, but that it is immoral to bring children into this world.

[…] As Biologism becomes less of a given, we’re bound to witness changes in how we relate to family and parenthood. [Adoption] could also contribute to a continued decrease in birth rate, as the people who only wanted biological children reevaluate their desire to be parents at all. In the longer term, we should hope to witness the broader acceptance of nontraditional, nonnuclear family structures—ones that stem less from a default view of “natural” biological relations and more from active, self-conscious construction.

Decentering genetics could also have repercussions that ripple out far beyond the family unit. Genetic provenance has long been used as a tool to construct and uphold white hegemony; think of the legacy of the “one drop rule” that erected whiteness around a logic of ancestral purity.

[…] Insisting that you’ll only be a parent to a related child will be seen as increasingly reductive and close-minded—a stance at odds with the momentum of our expanding ethics. If one chooses to become a parent, then it will be for reasons that go beyond this narrow desire for biological self-reproduction.

Over time, we will finally come to realize that our relations with each other are not defined by our rudimentary, mechanistic desire to pass on our genes, but rather our capacity for love and care— the expansiveness of our attachments and the depths of our devotion to one another. In short, in all that makes us humane.

---

AUTHOR COMMENTARY

A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.

Proverbs 15:4

Talk about “a breach in the spirit” here if there ever was! My goodness these people are truly mad.

As a general rule of thumb and proverbial wisdom plainly explained from Genesis to Revelation, anything that promotes or results in death is SIN. Openly calling for an end to “biological preferred children,” the “traditional” family ordained by God, replacing that with selective breeding and gene-editing, race-mixing and mass integration (which is what they would call me “xenophobic,” but I am guess I am blinded by my “whiteness” right?), and outright forced celibacy; is death, and what Wired is touting is truly demonic.

The labour of the righteous tendeth to life: the fruit of the wicked to sin.

In the way of righteousness is life; and in the pathway thereof there is no death.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Proverbs 10:16, 12:28; Romans 6:23

At its core of course is this a direct attack, again, against everything God calls good, holy, and righteous.

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Psalm 127:3; Genesis 1:28

I highlight this mischievous madness by this demoniac because it demonstrates the mainstream media emphasizing once again the need to depopulate, and embrace eugenics and transhumanism, and ultimately to stop having children save only the abominations that the state creates in a lab somewhere, that you can treat like you treat a dog or cat.

However, I suspect a lot of people will go along with this eventually, including some of the saved:

[1] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; [2] Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; [3] Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

You can read up on more of the WinePress articles discussing the open calls to depopulate.

---

[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).

The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE