I and mine had our sons by a similar technique almost 30 years ago.
Besides being highly unethical at the time it was forbidden by international law.
But, having worked with some ingenious and really special people, we made it happen twice.
One son looks like me and the other looks like him. One dark and one white.
They share the same fraternal DNA between both but have separate maternal DNA.
I use to joke with them about being born in a Petrie dish.

Although this was new to most people, my family has been doing this stuff for decades now. But in more natural ways. The men in the family would marry a woman who would be a good mother, but many of the children were born of women of certain characteristics to enhance the man's natural characteristics in a male child (intellect, physical abilities) The old eugenics style of creation.
growing up I always thought it was strange that on my Dad's side of the family, nobody gave birth to girls. I didn't find out until a couple of years ago why that was. Digging thru my grandparent's documents I found lots of evidence that abortions and adoptions were done on all female children.

Regardless, I am glad to see the world starting to get a better grip on natural selection.

Does the world really start getting a better grip on natural selection?

Although this was new to most people, my family has been doing this stuff for decades now. But in more natural ways. The men in the family would marry a woman who would be a good mother, but many of the children were born of women of certain characteristics to enhance the man's natural characteristics in a male child (intellect, physical abilities) The old eugenics style of creation.
growing up I always thought it was strange that on my Dad's side of the family, nobody gave birth to girls. I didn't find out until a couple of years ago why that was. Digging thru my grandparent's documents I found lots of evidence that abortions and adoptions were done on all female children.

Regardless, I am glad to see the world starting to get a better grip on natural selection.

Despite their overblown fears – and unfortunately, considering the fantastic potential for this to make biological babies of lesbian couples a reality – experiments are still ongoing.

Well, I'm all up for this.  If gay couples can show lots of love to adopted children or children that belong biologically to only one member of the couple, being able to have biological babies that belong to both would be greatly welcomed.  This would also settle down parenthood and legal guardianship issues in case one person dies.

And heterosexual couples benefit from it too.  In some countries and in certain economical or social groups, being barren is a source of stress for the individuals. Straight couples would be able to have biological babies even if one of them is sterile.

The only part that irks me is the possibility of having a baby that is biologically mine and mine alone.  Almost sounds as a clone.  About the 'notions of parenthood and legal implications' I daresay they wouldn't need to worry as long as this process is regulated.  For example, not creating gametes without the express consent of the DNA donor (imagine a woman getting pregnant to trap a husband using just a hair root or other genetic material, that would be against the law) and not making viable embryos with more genetic material than that of 2 persons, so no 'multiplex parenting'.