I'm really unsure about the transhumanism idea, I've heard that its lurking behind a lot of the vogue in LGTB politics, or at least I've heard it suggested so and it wasnt all by some crazy lunatic illuminati conspiracy style nut too.
The reason being that there is potentially a really ugly side to it in which people who've already lost faith in any sort of God/Cosmic or transcent idea/order then lose faith in humanity or any sort of decency with terrible results, to be precise I think Erich Fromm and E.O. Wilson's dichotomy between biophilious and (Fromm's "counterpart") necrophilious is a good one, the difference between loving and valuing living systems and dead ones.
If you look at the change in mindset from back when the Cybermen, Daleks, Borg were all first conceived in science fiction, they were figures of horror, in the last Terminator film John Connor, former leader of the human resistance in that mythos, was now a hybrid machine himself and almost like some kind of tragic hero too to a lot of people, seriously, I've known people to say did you not see how logical Skynet/Connor's character was and the "fusion" idea was so close to that of singularity mechanics as to be a brilliant on screen portrayal. I cant remember the name of the film now, its the name of the title character, but in which a police robot is stolen and "raised" as a thief by gang members, only for him to crack what consciousness is and towards the end of the film transfer that of a scientist helping him and his "mom" to machines like himself. A horror prospect previously when it happened to Picard, a happy ending in that feature.
Similarly you could consider District 13 or whatever it was called, which featured the "Prawns" alien refugees in Africa, as a transhumanism feature too, the guy who is a human who assists them in escaping does wind up entirely transformed into one of them by the end of the feature, not a machine but no longer a man.
I dont see there being any particularly Christian problem with life extending tech, I find it highly curious that this framed in this way but perhaps interesting in that someone wants to frame it that way, someone would like to set up a dichotomy of that kind and have "that" debate, with the sole likely skeptics being the faction that elites and main street are unlikely to relate to in quite the same way as where it anyone else. Its very odd considering that at least the RCC has been at the cutting edge of life affirming actions and messages, condemning malthusian thinking or a certain vogue for suicides and assisted deaths, which popular authors such as Terry Pratchett (I love the guy's fiction and some of his non-fiction) have played a part in. Though just noticing it and I think it'd be great if other people did too, you know not simply have the debate but question why are we having this particular debate, at this particular time and who does it benefit immediately and on a much longer scale? Like the next debate and the one after than and how will the last effect the next?
Humanism perhaps should debate with any transhumanist ideas, although its purely developed and some of its sources seriously misunderstood, I think this is part of the reason that a lot of people didnt understand at all or thought the worst of the Vatican response to the marriage paradigm shift when they said it was a "defeat for humanity".
Leave youse all with that to ponder because I'm going on retreat.