My point was that a lot of people on here talk as if the decision to have children is usually (or should be) an altruistic or selfless one. It seems to me that most people choose to have children because they think it will bring them happiness and make their life better or more purposeful. Moreover, for people who want children, it’s a hugely powerful drive, and many people will go to great lengths to achieve it. So to criticise this woman for making a choice primarily motivated her desire to have a child feels unfair.
Second, I think there are some double standards at work. Many children are brought into the world in what some might consider less than ‘ideal’ circumstances. Use of donor gametes, single mothers, parents with mental health challenges, precarious living arrangements, those with genetically inherited health conditions, those who decide to proceed with a pregnancy after the foetus has been identified as having a condition such as Downs - in any of these cases, parents may decide to have a child knowing that it is likely to suffer a disadvantage of some kind. That is an intensely personal choice.
Just because in this case the route to having a child involves a new technology, people seem to be holding the woman to much higher standards in saying that it was selfish of her to do it when there could possibly be adverse health consequences for her baby.
i’m only talking about the objections based on the wellbeing of the baby, i know there are separate arguments based on the impact on the donor or on the use of scarce resources.