I think it was bloody mean of Madonna to take that baby away from his dad; why can't she adopt him too? She has loads of spare room. TUT
2006-10-11 01:25:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lupee 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it is sad because the boy already has a living father and grandmother who simply couldn't afford to keep him. I wish that she had just provided the money for the baby to return to his village and to improve conditions for all the children there. I know the child will be well looked after by a professional staff but I can't imagine Madonna as an ideal mother. She doesn't seem to be doing to badly with the kids she already has but Lourdes is just reaching the age when celebrity kids get into big trouble. I withhold my judgment on Madonna's parenting until she has a teen.
2006-10-10 22:07:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kuji 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Got to be good for the baby. If I had a choice of being supported by one of the worlds richest women for the rest of my life or scratching an existence in adoption homes and working from the age of 8 I know what I'd prefer.
The baby will probably spend more time with baby sitters than Mrs Scrawny Ritchie anyway!
2006-10-10 22:10:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well I think all celebrities should adopt a child from a poor country... I hope madonna has enough information about the father, grand parents and mother so when the child gets older the child has some understanding of his past..identity is very import for a child because it is what makes a child strong but overall all celebrities should do it.
2006-10-11 01:49:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by elainefromlondon 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, there are a lot of personal problems in this world you should not be snooping around in, for one. And yes, this is a very likely situation. Read up on Mendel's laws of genetics. This is extremely possible. Even more so if she was bi-racial. You see, blue eyes is a recessive genetic trait. That means that the black gene for black hair and brown eyes is dominant over the white trait for blonde hair and blue eyes. But, if your black example is biracial and has one blonde hair, blue eyed parent, and one completely black parent, she will look completely black but she would have the genes for a blonde hair, blue eyed baby. So, if she marries someone with blonde hair and blue eyes, she will have a blonde hair and blue eyed baby for sure.
2016-03-28 04:39:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
personally i think that if a person is able to have her own kids why should she adopt a child. she might be able to give the child everything in the world but there will always be that distance between the child and her biological children. and that might have an effect on the adopted child. y can't these mothers that r able to have their own kids leave the adoptions to the childless mother to take care of these children that don't have mothers.
2006-10-10 22:15:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the kid will fit in fine...
When in later life he goes in search of his true parents at least he'll be able to rob a car, film himself on his video mobile and sing songs to himself as the stereo will have been robbed.
He'll also be able to spread the word what a great country this is and how they pay for you to do fcuk all and provide you with nice big houses the more kids you have ..... welcome to paradise!
2006-10-10 22:09:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's not a black baby - it's a brown (pronounced brarn) one, and it wasn't from Del boy - it was Wayne and Waynetta.
2006-10-10 22:27:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the baby is gonna have a better life than anyone off a council estate
race isnt important - its the love and support that counts
2006-10-10 21:59:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by schmushe 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Excellent for the baby - will never have to steal a car or mug an old lady for her pension. Can do that stuff just for fun.
2006-10-10 21:59:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋