Funny, he is identified in this article.

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/749034-australian-parents-reveal-their-side-of-the-surrogate-baby-story-thailand/

I find the entire surrogacy issue highly controversial, if not morally questionable.

 

If a heterosexual couple turns out to be infertile - because of infertile sperm, infertile eggs, an organic disorder, or any combination thereof - there is a reason for that. It's called natural selection. It's evolution's way to ensure that only the healthiest gene pool of any given species is propagated.

 

Certainly, there is the emotional agony a couple has to endure when they desperately want a child, but can't for one reason or another. Yet IMO the "higher tier" consideration - keeping the gene pool healthy and intact - must take precedence.

 

If a child is so desperately wanted, there still is the very viable option of adopting one from among the millions over millions of orphans in this world. This also has humanitarian merit, as the respective couple is giving a child (although not borne from their own genes) the chance to grow up in a loving family, a chance that this child otherwise would have been denied. 

 

Not that national authorities would make adoption as easy and painless as possible, though. On the contrary. It is no wonder then that many childless couples choose the considerably easier way of simply shelling out a substantial sum to have someone else carry out the child. But in a sense, this practice is tantamount to treating new life like a commodity that changes hand for the right amount of money. It's reminiscent of ordering a new jacket from your neighborhood tailor, because you don't have the skills to sew one yourself. 

 

As per homosexual couples, I think the answer is quite clear cut. By nature, they are not supposed to have a child at all - unless nature evolves to the point that a male can fertilize another male, a female another female. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, sorry.   

 

 

There is also the issue of accidents and medical mistakes made years before that cause a persons infertility.

And THAT has nothing to do with natural selection or the right to pass on your genetic patterns.

 

Surrogacy is NOT morally questionable, not in the least, but it must be done on sober reflection,

and accepting the totality of risks, that one would accept naturally by CHOOSING to have a baby,

 but normal means or IVF. Or for that matter blind adoption, where the child may well have an

undisclosed or unrecognised medical issue.

 

Clearly this couple cut corners and didn't accept their full responsibility to the children they brought into the world.

That is the only morally questionable or controversial aspect of this procedure and this story.

 

Addendum.

Adding the reported fact that a convicted paedophile can father children in a foreign country,

pick and choose which child to take back, and then pretend he is a viable parent.

That is a moral cesspool of filth. 

 

So apparently there is no correlation between immigration and paediophile arrest records?

Edited August 5, 201412 yr by animatic

an australian family surrogate lawyer has just said its possible for the mother to make  a claim in the  australian courts  for custody  of the the child............................this story has  a lot more life in it yet...............................m sneerson  schnable

an australian family surrogate lawyer has just said its possible for the mother to make  a claim in the  australian courts  for custody  of the the child............................this story has  a lot more life in it yet...............................m sneerson  schnable

The courts will have to decide what is in the best interest of the children.

 

Should the twins be together?

Is Australia better than Thailand for them to grow up?

Is a convicted serial pedophile an appropriate person to raise and care for children?