unconventionally conceived = conceived through IVF, or another method which isn't a natural man + woman + in-body conception + implantation scheme.
i.e. there is some intervention which changes the path, location, constituency, existence, or selection of the sperm or egg such as filtering sperm, artificially selecting sperm, temporarily removing the egg or fetus, exposing either of them to foreign agents for genetic/health purposes, or similar divergence from the conventional method with significant effects.
Judging timespan: if such a condition holds for net children born over at least 6 months before the judging date.
In the 20 years between 1996 and 2016 the number of Assistant reproductive tech births increased from 20k to ~75k (1.7% of total births), or 3.8x. This implies that another ~18x increase would be needed by 2030, where the actual extrapolated increase is more like 5x. In other words, this is not happening.
It's wild to me that anyone thinks the economics on this would work. I must remind you that people pay to not have pregnancies the conventional way. Even if we develop stellar genetic engineering in that timeframe (as well as the legal codes to allow for unrestricted use of it) I still don't expect that 30%+ of the population would be using it yet.