I would truly be bizarre if I had said that, but I didn't. My husband and I didn' have sex to have our second son, who was adopted from Russia, but we don't love him less: that's not the point.
Nor is point that that it is somhow "wrong" to have fertility treatments, i.e. treatments to restore or strengthen the ability to have children through marital intercourse. I don't know anybody who think that's objectionable. Anyone who has problems achieving or carrying a pregnancy would be well served to seek therapeuic intervention from a group that uses ethical and scientifically valid metods to restore normal fertility, such as NaProTechnology -- good group, that.
It is not at all bizarre to note that the human good of secure identity--- on the species, genetic, familial, and personal level --- is safeguarded when a child comes into existence as a result of marital sexual union; and that other choices (e.g. non-marital, non-sexual, non-union) undermine that security.
I's not a question of how much you love the child. It's a question of whether you think human sexual intercourse is inherently meaningful. Not just instrumentally efficient, but meaningful: pertaining to the child as a person and not as a product.
I applaud you for adopting a child. But I'm confused because you say that children conceived out of wedlock or aside from "meaningful sexual intercourse" present a threat to human identity and security (ie species, genetics, family, etc)? Obviously, I don't agree with you on that but using your logic, why is an adopted child any different? Those married couples who opt for invitro because their natural reproductive organs have failed or were damaged, I don't believe they view their children as a product anymore than you view your own child as such. For them, in vitro is a tool that replaces a body part that has failed.
You wrote: I am convinced that "artificial reproduction" --- whether it involves in-vitro, hormonal manipulation of post-menopausal females, or even "just" no-sex insemination --- is just as wrong-headed as artificial contraception. I don't care if it's done to animals. All this stuff may be a legitimate part of veterinary medicine. But human person find an essential meaning in natural sexual relations--- and I say "essential" because if the meaning isn't there, it's not just absent, it's positively wrong. This whole set-up demeans the child from the first moment of his existence, making him not a gift of personal love, but an experiment and a lab product.
You have said that if a child is conceived "outside" the bounds of normal, marital sex, they are lacking in something. (meaning? love? identity? security? not sure since you've backtracked).
Unfortunately for some couples, conception through sexual intercourse isn't possible because their reproductive organs aren't cooperating. I am sure that those couples would prefer not to have the invasive procedures done if they could conceive any other way.