I'm not a writer. I don't know much about poetry. English isn't even my native language. Oh, and I'm not familiar with the original "The Gift We Give Tomorrow". But I'll still comment. There are a few places in the text that confuse me. That might just be my stupidity (or the fact that I'm not a native speaker), but I still pointed them out in case they can be improved in such a way that even stupid people (or non-native speakers) don't get confused.

A species could evolve to extinction, if the winning genes were playing negative sum games

When I first read this, I thought that it doesn't flow very well and that it might be better if the two parts were flipped around: "If the winning genes were playing negative sum games, a species could evolve to extinction". Know I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on how you say it.

A mother's child shares her genes,

Spelling. "She shares", not "she share".

We argue, verbally,

"linguistically" is an odd and complicated word and it seems to me that "verbally" has the same meaning here (although "verbally" would exclude sign language, I think).

A preference for simple propositions, perhaps reused from our Occam prior.

I don't really get that. I have a concept of what "Occam prior" means (a prior that favors simpler explanations). But how would a preference for simpler propositions reuse "our Occam prior", instead of just being our Occam prior?

Because it was only a miracle from the perspective of the morality that was produced? Explaining away all the apparent coincidence from a causal and physical perspective?

That one confused me, too. The second sentence to be precise. "We call it a moral miracle, because it was only a miracle from the perspective of the morality that was produced" makes sense to me. "We call it a moral miracle, because it's explaining away all the apparent coincidence from a causal and physical perspective" doesn't make sense to me.

Even as life itself required that first replicator,

The word "even" doesn't make much sense to me here. "Just" seems to be what's needed here. What seems to be intended is a comparison "just as with love, so with life". To me "even as" means "at the same time" or signals something surprising.

And their parents will say:
Because we, who also love, created you to love.

You don't usually say that parents create their children, so I assume it's meant that they are designed by their parents, especially with the later line "there were intelligent beings who were not themselves intelligently designed", that suggest that the speaker is intelligently designed. Depending on the audience and the context this work appears in, the hint might be too subtle, or too outlandish, and therefore distracting. (Or was no such meaning intended and I'm too suspicious?)

Beyond the reach of god.

I read your discussion with Tetronian. I agree with you that this line comes out of nowhere and should be (if included at all) closer to a discussion about how love didn't arose by design or magic (or the word "god" should be mentioned before, so that "beyond the reach of god" becomes a clear reference to that part). But I also think that the end is the wrong place to mention that concept. The title is "The Gift We Give Tomorrow" and so the end should, I think, emphasize the future and what we do with that gift, not where the gift ultimately comes from (natural means, instead of god).