Was giving up Gammy heartless? Or the right thing to do?

It's a moral dilemma isn't it?  After months, or even years of trying for a baby you finally get a surrogate.  You not only have twins but you find that one of them is born in Thailand with Down's Syndrome.  You choose to take the other baby and leave the disabled one with the surrogate mother.  Next thing you know there are headlines in your native Australia brandishing you terrible parents and how could you do such a thing?!  You're criticised and the media looks down upon you.  Surrogacy is called into question but the main issue, would you keep a disabled baby isn't?

Every day just about we read stories about parents who abuse their children, parents who don't feed their children and parents who basically shouldn't have children in the first place.  We see countless stories about children going to school without food or even shoes in some cases.  And very rarely we ignore what is staring as blankly in the face which is that some people should not have kids.

The parents of baby Gammy have been called heartless by Australia's mainstream media and the mother in Thailand is threatening legal action against the parents.  It has come to light the father has allegedly been involved in sex abuse against children.

So the question now is, even though it's easy to say that they are heartless haven't they actually done the right thing by giving up a baby that they don't want?  Isn't that baby better off with a parent who, although she may be poor, will actually love the child and give it the care and attention he needs.

Today the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Gammy's parents were told the baby boy only had a day to live at most.  The parents then said goodbye and farewelled their baby boy.  Claims that they requested an abortion when told Gammy had Down's Syndrome are incorrect according to the Sydney Morning Herald.  They say that they left him because it was either take the girl or potentially lose both the babies due to military unrest in Thailand.

Even if the latter is true, why has Gammy not yet been flown to Australia where medical attention and treatment would be of a superior standard.

And if it is true that they didn't want Gammy because of his Down's Syndrome then they may have done the kinder thing.  Gammy's surrogate clearly loves the boy from pictures the media has released and isn't that more important in some cases than being with your biological parent?

It raises a question though, should we be allowed to abort babies when we find out they have mental disabilities?  We're talking about people that will never be independent and that will need constant care throughout their lives.  Caring for one healthy baby would be hard enough, let alone caring for one that has health issues.

It doesn't just include people though, children aren't the only ones ditched by parents, animals are too.  If you're not going to care for a child or an animal adequately then the fact of the matter is, you shouldn't have one, and sometimes although it seems heartless, adopting out an unwanted child or pet is actually the kinder thing to do so that it can be with someone who will love and care for it.