I think there are a few parts to this apparently but not really naive question.
The simpkest is empathy - obviously it's "mean" to deliberately hurt the feelings of people struggling with infertility or any other ussue. That just means being thoughtful about what you say and how you say it. People probe to being hurt by the words of strangers probably should stay away from forums where strangers have robust discussions though, as if nobody was ever allowed to discuss anything which might upset someone who might read it the world would be a worse place, asserious ethical issues would never be examined.
On a more practical level the person who said it's a parallel to sex as a right has an excellent point, as well as the person who made the case law clear (right to maintain family relationships not to be awarded help to create new life).
I think surrogacy brings the "right to have a baby" issue into sharp focus, just as prostitution does the "right to sex" issue. Both involve paying a poorer woman to give up her bodily autonomy for a time, and both subject the woman to risk, and both might appear to be freely entered into but when you look behind the scenes very often aren't, and often have unexpected negative reprocussions.
Surrogacy has massive ethical problems because it it puts the rights of adults before the baby, which is never the case under any other law.
Deliberately choosing to create a baby to be removed from it's mother at birth puts the wants of adults before the needs of children. Nobody would breed a kitten or puppy intending to remove it from it's mother before weaning, yet people actively set out to do this when they create a surrogate pregnancy. It is never optimal to remove a newborn from it's mother (in some child protection cases it's the least worst option, given the already existing pregnancy and high risk to the baby, but clearly least worst isn't optimal!)
IVF with donor eggs or sperm also creates some potential issues for the baby, and isn't a clear cut "good" but less obviously irresponsible than planning to create a baby to be removed from it's mother at birth and denied the fourth trimester and any chance of breastfeeding etc.
Funding is another issue but imo the least important - it's the impact on the baby and child they become, and then the impact on the women used as tools (incubators, egg production machines) that are the real issue.
I don't see a major ethical issue with IVF using the parents own eggs, sperm and womb in the same way.
I think, as with sex, the right is a passive not an active one. Nobody has a right to stop anyone doing anything with their body with another fully enthusiastic consenting adult partner and nobody has a right to force anyone else to be sterilised, use birth control or abort a baby. However nobody has a"right" to state or public assistance in procuring sex or babies either.