Jay, I am a "Progressive", I must be out of step with all the other progressives. I am not in favor of human trafficking of children through surrogacy from the third world to the rich in the developed world. How do you know its the so called "White Progressives" who are driving this, can you name them? If you can not it could the work of some elitists conservatives. At one time in Australia it was considered fashionable to keep an aboriginal child in a white household, much in the way we keep dogs and cats as pets today. I do not thing such people were progressive, but they were white, so its half right.

Paul,
Well the name of one of these progressives is Tony Abbott:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-orders-new-national-boost-to-overseas-adoption-20140504-zr4ey.html
It's important to understand that the goal of "progress" in this context is the fulfillment of individual personal ambitions at any cost. When we talk about this culture of "narcissism" surely the most obvious symptom of the disease is White progressives asserting that they have a right to own children or to have children provided to them on demand to fulfill their ambitions.
Evidence gathered in the U.S indicates that interracial and international adoption is not good for adoptees, yet progressives like Mr Abbott and the numerous celebrity baby collectors such as Deborah Lee Furness insist that the practice should be more widespread:
http://qz.com/125451/the-real-reason-international-adoptions-are-failing/

Jay, you name a number of people through the SMH article, Abbott, Brandis, Andrews and Morrison, political retards that I would associate with conservatism before accusing them of being in any way "progressive". People with a very conservative outlook would as easily as anyone take advantage of surrogacy or international adoption for their own selfish satisfaction as much as these "progressives", you go on about. Are you concerned that international adoption from the third world could be "polluting" the gene pool of the white people?
What is your opinion of of "mixed" relationships? I may be biased as I am in a "mixed" relationship at the moment myself, and have been for many years now. We are financially well off even by Australian standards. We enjoy and get satisfaction from being involved in supporting people in Fiji, Samoa and Vanuatu along with family support in Aotearoa, a place my partner is a native of. She, "T", is very much the driving force behind our support, so I can not take the credit. At my partners insistence our support goes beyond the financial, which is easy, to include yearly trips to our other families both "back home" and in the islands for talks about what's needs to be done, along with lots of social gatherings.
As for Deborra-Lee Furness, I know she is an actor, but do not know much else about her, could be a female Tony Abbott for all we know.

I don't know too much about surrogacy -
only that celebrities or people with money
seem to be able to afford it and they prefer
to have their own babies instead of adopting.
Which I suppose is a normal reaction.

However regarding "Gammy" - as Suse pointed
out earlier - we really don't know all the details
in what arrangement this couple had with the surrogate.
We don't know the full story. At first glance it does
appear to be incredibly cruel to take one twin and
leave another behind because of some handicap. But we're
really not in a position to be able to judge without
knowing all the facts.

Many couples seem to rely on IVF and rich ones on surrogacy -
and I guess this will continue to be the case. Perhaps what
we need is stronger international checks that would be
fairer to all concerned. Although implementing these
regulations in poorer countries will be extremely difficult.
Still worth a try.

Foxy, poor countries can make laws every bit as tough as we can, but often corruption, economic circumstance, resources etc allows for a blind eye approach when it comes to enforcement. As a rich country Australia can afford the luxury of social justice type laws. I question how much 'power' did the natural mother have in her decision making on this, was she desperate for the money, maybe seen as the only way out of poverty to some temporary degree. The rich are in a position to take advantage of desperate poor people, if they wish.

Paul1405,

You go further than considering such issues in sentencing, to excuse the crime where the offender is one of your favoured groups.

But does that misled 'compassion' extend to you and yours though? Would you excuse the burglar who prowled your home while your loved ones were there?

To take another example,

<Qld A-G to appeal gang-rape sentences

December10,2007
Queensland's Attorney-General Kerry Shine says he will appeal sentences handed down against nine males who gang-raped a 10-year-old girl in 2005.
Cairns-based District Court judge Sarah Bradley did not record convictions against six teenage attackers and gave three others aged 17, 18 and 26 suspended sentences over the incident at the indigenous Aurukun community on Cape York.
The girl had "probably agreed" to have sex with the youths, Judge Bradley said during her sentencing remarks, The Australian newspaper reported.
Mr Shine met with Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare for urgent advice on Monday, and determined the October sentences would be appealed, even though the deadline had passed.
"I am truly horrified by the circumstances of these offences," he told reporters in Brisbane.
"The law should be consistent in its application, whether it be in Aurukun or Clayfield."...
Opposition justice spokesman Mark McArdle said the penalties the prosecution sought should also be investigated.
"How did the DPP fail to put any evidence before the court, any submissions warranting a custodial sentence, and why didn't the DPP's office insist on a custodial sentence in these circumstances?" Mr McArdle told AAP.
He was also concerned that the victim was said to have agreed to sex, as children could never consent.>
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Qld-AG-may-seek-appeal-over-rape-call/2007/12/10/1197135325064.html

There are obvious problems in what you propose. It would excuse judicial mistakes like the one above and even legitimise them and ensure that the offences were not even investigated in the first place, once police found that the offender was a member of one of your protected 'victim' groups.