I'm somehow missing the connection you're making. How is an abortion the alternative to buying sperm or eggs?
For that matter I don't see abortion as an alternative to anything and can't understand when it is used as an tool in an argument where we are supposed to choose something we disagree with--in order to prevent more people choosing abortion, as if they could not have chosen to do better in the first place and can't clean up their mess without committing some further wrong.
But in this instance, I'm just trying to understand how it factors in to your objection to the author of the article ranting against the selling of sperm and eggs.
I'm just pointing out that if anybody wants to make an issue about this, it is a far lesser moral infraction than having an abortion.
Shopping for what one might consider superior or preferable genetic material is pretty much a crap shoot, so I don't see this as any particular kind of threat to the valuation of human life.
Thus, being indignant over this gene shopping, as the author seems to be, is pointless. I'd rather spend my energy on the real issue involving procreative control, which is abortion on demand.
Why must these women give in to a (purely psychological?) urge to become biological mothers? Maybe, with some of their free time--just a few hours a month--they could hang out at the local crisis pregnancy center, lend a hand. Encourage a scared young woman, facing an unplanned pregnancy, to see adoption as an alternative to abortion. Save a life already created instead of starting from scratch. These centers need all the help they can get.
Artificial insemination, IVF, etc...these procedures do nothing, absolutely nothing, to decrease the incidence of abortion.
Rant?
Look, whether it's a good idea to try and ban this stuff may be open to debate, but what's not open to debate is that we've allowed babies to be a commodity. That's bad road, period.