We got some good answers in the comments. I will try to be brief in my own notes.
Conservative readers were expecting the author to condemn attachments based on biology and to propose his scheme as a way to overcome them. In fact, his scheme requires that people continue to especially value their biological progeny; the goal, stated plainly, is to get parents to love their children less, to shift focus from the children they are raising to a more diffuse concern for people in general. Parents are to be deliberately alienated from the children under their care so that attention shifts from those whom they are in a position to help greatly and who require from them an enormous personal investment toward strangers for whom they can do little for good or ill. The suggestion that his scheme would improve prenatal care is similar: take away a huge incentive from the person who most determines prenatal care; replace it with an insignificant, diffuse incentive on people with essentially no control over the care of the fetus; expect good results. The insanity of socialism in a nutshell.
Other unargued assumptions that should be contested:
- Even if this were a good thing to do, who is this “we” who has the authority to do it?
- Although the argument does not require that intense partiality (love) is bad, it does assume that it is not so valuable that it can’t be sacrificed to the presumed good of racial equality.
- The idea that cultural continuity can persist without biological continuity presumes that culture may not concern itself with biological continuity. In fact, we know many do, and no argument is given why this is illegitimate.