In a theoretical sense, of course she is. But she is not whining, she is speaking out to stop others from being created on purpose with no intent of providing a father.
I know I am going out on a limb on this thread, but consider the concept of a woman's absolute right not to carry a child who is conceived by rape. In that instance the woman chooses not to have a certain father in a potential child's life.
Whether it is a food stamp using mother or a Hollywood megastar, by artificial insemination conception the child is deliberately created to live a life without a father.
These two positions (rejecting a rapist's baby or making an anonymous baby) focus entirely on the woman, and give no consideration to the psyche of the planned child. Both are totally self-centered.
Of course, we all live with the cards we are dealt, as this writer says. It is the designer production of human beings that she is bringing to the attention of her audience. I applaud her.