The hard part of children is the womb and available parents, not creating an embryo. The UK needs to finish their artificial womb work.
While an artificial womb could be very useful as a medical device to save the life of the child, in vitro/ex vivo methods of reproduction only entrench human alienation. Support for them bespeaks an absence of a sound philosophical anthropology. And I mean not just the alienation of the children, but the alienation of men and women from their own humanity as well. And this is because it attacks the very core of what it means to be human.
But as they say, experience is an expensive school, but fools will learn in no other. Often, nothing short of catastrophe is needed to lead men to pause and reflection, and even then, there are no guarantees.
I absolutely disagree with your view. Infertility is a medical condition much like cataract or myocardial infarction.
In my view, it is profoundly unethical to deny unhealthy people efficient treatment of their disease for philosophical reasons. You are straying dangerously close to the "life unworthy of life" eugenics that is, fortunately, overcome. Trying to ban other people from procreating because your personal opinion on the necessary means is "phew, icky" (and for all the grand words in your comment, you basically say "phew, icky"), sounds like it is you who hasn't taken any lessons from the experience of the collective West.
In absence of a ban, you can be almost sure that someone will go to the extraordinarily lengths to develop such techniques for human use.
We have ChatGPT for that.