This chapter employs the Nature-Technology intrinsic value spectrum as a metacommentary to reframe the philosophical debate over the unnaturalness of human enhancement technologies (synthetic biology, genetic engineering, etc.). The chapter examines three camps in the naturalness debate: hard-line opponents (e.g., Leon Kass, Michael Sandel, Francis Fukuyama) who argue that tampering with human nature is intrinsically wrong; staunch proponents (e.g., transhumanists) who reject the intrinsic value of naturalness; and moderates who seek to draw a reasoned line in the sand between acceptable and unacceptable alterations. The central argument is that this prima facie ethical debate, which seeks an objective, universally applicable cut-off point, constitutes a category mistake. By reducing the conflict to a specific instance of the broader Nature-Technology intrinsic value trade-off, the chapter concludes that the debate is fundamentally a political problem of balancing antagonistic intrinsic values, not an ethical problem of finding binary rights and wrongs. This political lens alleviates the pressure on bioethicists to find a “holy grail method” for drawing lines, demonstrating the spectrum’s utility in diagnosing and managing complex, value-laden public policy conflicts.