Is a child a want or a need or a biological imperative? (re: donor conception/surrogacy/adoption)

There was a note worthy exchange between Theresa M. Erickson, Attorney (www.EricksonLaw.net) and Ian Robinson (President of the Rationalist Society of Australia http://www.rationalist.com.au/office.htm) on Theresa Erickson's blog on Proud Parenting (http://www.proudparenting.com/node/3160#comments)

Specifically:
**THERESA ERICKSON wrote in her post:
“We understand that the need for a child is not a want or a need, it is a biological imperative!” states Theresa M. Erickson, Attorney.

**IAN ROBINSON responded in the comment section:
"Only the need for your own biological child can be a biological imperative. The need for someone else's child, whether by adoption, surrogacy or gamete donation, can only be a socio-psychological need, informed by ones social mores and psycho-history. As such, the need for someone else's child cannot be an imperative of any kind, and in fact sounds on the face of it to be more like greed and/or larceny. People who embark on such courses of action must prima facie be masters of self-deception in order to go through with it. Which is why they won't understand this message.

Ian Robinson"

**THERESA ERICKSON:
"Ian, I absolutely respect your opinion, and I am certain others agree with you in many ways. However, in our society, who is the one to decide who can have a child and who cannot? Who should make those judgments and why?

Theresa M. Erickson, Esquire"

**IAN ROBINSON:
"Theresa Erikson asks "who is the one to decide who can have a child and who cannot?" This is not like asking "who can own a firearm?" or "who can hold a licence to drive a car?" The object of the Theresa's question is a person, not something to be "had" or "not had". Once the debate has moved on to the question of "who can have [another person]?", in this case a child, it has gone too far. No-one has the right to another person so no-one has the right to a child. And in particular, no-one has the right to someone else's child. What one does in the case of one's childlessness, whether this is due to physiological limitations or choice of sexual orientation, is up to each person's conscience and I don't presume to judge for them. All I ask is that they recognise that they are making hugely significant choices for another person who has no say in the matter and this is a very weighty moral burden.

The focus should not be on the person who may or may not "have" a child, but on the potential child.

Ian Robinson"