The only requirement seems to be a human egg, a few swimming sperm and a working womb.
Witness the case of the woman whose husband died in a scuffle with New York police. Although distraught, the widow had the presence of mind to demand that doctors remove a few million sperm from the corpse.
And despite the fact that he's technically dead and won't make much of a father, she's planning to have his child.
Divorcing couples routinely battle over their frozen embryos as though they were nothing more than biological pieces of furniture.
Just this week, a New York judge awarded five frozen embryos to a woman who intends to implant them in herself despite the strenuous objections of her newly divorced husband.
And in another recent case of reproductive stupidity, a single 26-year-old man was allowed to donate $30,000 and his sperm to a surrogacy agency and, in return, a woman produced a baby boy for him. Five weeks later, the man had beaten the infant to death.
It's hard for plain old horse sense to keep up with the deadly combination of technology and human arrogance.
The world's religions used to spend a great deal of time finely honing and crafting the circumstances under which people could reproduce. But they are left in the dust by scientists, wanna-be parents and the lawyers who make it all possible.
Religious leaders are still fretting about sex while all the real action is taking place in sterile laboratories without a candle or edible undergarment or condom in sight.
That's not to say that advances in reproductive technology aren't invaluable for those infertile couples who desperately want to have children.
But people rarely talk about whether single people should be routinely allowed to reproduce without having anything more in common with their partner than a vial of sperm.
Maybe it's time to slow down the reproductive technology and let reason catch up.