If a couple can't have the child they long for more than anything in the world, they can fight infertility by adoption or gamete donation. Neither is a moral failing. These options are ways to love and raise children. Genetics do not matter in love or childrearing.
Other than foster-to-adopt, adoption costs a lot of money and it's hard to get an infant (thus without serious emotional problems that may be lifelong). Using donor sperm if the father is infertile, or eggs if the mother is, would cost less, and would mean you could control the important prenatal care and early attachment and love of the baby.
The media and unthinking people love to CROW about how wrong these solutions are, how untasteful and immoral. They are wrong. The donor only provided some genetics. The donor is not a "dad" and never will be. He is only the source of some genetic traits. In the end, the genetic traits are just cocktail party conversation. What a parent Does with his child is parenting.
****The donor only provided some genetics. The donor is not a “dad” and never will be.****
However, the point of the article and the discussion - is the anonymity of the paid sperm donors - until the IVF children begin to have genetic medical problems or marry a half-sibling.