“[W]hen contextualized amongst our other modern ethical norms, this preference can feel downright ancient – a vestigial remnant of a different epoch, a fossil no longer animated by the same moral intuitions that gave it gravity in the past,” Kim writes.

Translation: Technology means that one-man-one-woman reproduction is a thing of the past. Get with the times.

“This biological desire reinforces norms that we are explicitly aiming to dismantle,” Kim continues. “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.”

There’s a lot going on in Kim’s piece, which is jam-packed with references to anti-natalism, gestational surrogacy, and embryonic screening.

[What they’re trying to dismantle is the nuclear family, and this is just another tactic. There is nothing wrong with adoption, of course; I’m an adoptive father. But there is nothing “immoral” about wanting to bring children into the world in a natural manner between a husband and wife and nothing at all “immoral” about preferring that over adoption as a process. In fact, in both the cultural and theological senses, that outcome produces the highest chances of stability and prosperity for both the family and the children later as adults. Why *wouldn’t* a rational person prefer the option that not only has the higher chances for success but also essentially shuts out government intervention as a result? And more importantly, why would outsiders want to intervene in the first place, except as a means of destroying the concept of family and self-governance? — Ed]