I was thinking, instead of Madonna adopting a baby to give it a better life, she should donate the equivilent money it would cost to raise the child, to the Africans. This would be mush more useful and would help lots of people instead of just one baby.
what are yout thoughts?
2006-10-12 07:29:04 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
What is it with having babies as fashion accessories.
I have two BIG problems with this.
1. The Malawi government have a strict ban on foreigners adopting children - which they have lifted for some reason (maybe because she is famous?). She should be subject to the same conditions as everybody else.
2. I read testimonials from other African children who were asked about it and they are gutted. There are 900,000 orphans and she has (effectively like the lottery) told them that she is going to pluck one to a life of super uber where as the rest have losing tickets. As if their life isn't hard enough without this?
I also think that too many celebrities are taking foreign adopted children as fashion acessories (children should be cherished not used like Paris Hilton uses puppies). And to be honest the life that Madonna leads raises the sort of devils that bite peoples heads off, even though they will be better fed I think they would have grown up better people well away from Madonna!!!
2006-10-12 20:31:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agreed I think she should be sponsoring kids instead of taking a child that already has a father. She should have given the money to the baby's father so he could raise his own son. But Angelina did the same and no one questioned that. (The kids grandmother wanted to raise the little girl but couldn't afford it.)
It has been reported that Madonna is giving money to the village and setting up centres but there's a catch. She is also involving her cult beliefs on them as well. Great, money through cults.
2006-10-12 10:46:26 · answer #2 · answered by buzybee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be honest I am disgusted having and adopting a different race child seems to be the "Celebrity fashion assessory" and it is wrong. I know they will be looked after and will want for nothing but what about their culture/religion/beliefs are they going to be taken on board?
In answer to your question she should have donated the huge sums of money she can to the village and helped a lot more people.If the child was an orphan then what about making where he was a better place for him to live.
With you on this mate.
2006-10-12 07:41:55 · answer #3 · answered by momof3 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She is doing both. She's donating a huge sum to the orphanage, AND adopting the child. She's doing something good, no matter why. Wish other rich people could do the same!
2006-10-13 03:29:31 · answer #4 · answered by Grilla Parlante 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I pretty much agree with everyones answer to this question.......Everyone had good view points..........But just keep in mind that in my state alone the cut off for anyone to adopt is the age of 44.. I guess b/cause in 18 years the parents will be 62 and won't need to do things as they did with the child when they were younger.......There has to be a cut off for the childs welfare.......
2006-10-12 07:42:34 · answer #5 · answered by mom of a boy and girl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These Celebrities are just making totally asses of themselves now.. Do they actually think that Joe Public take all their crap in - these days...It is very sad that these poor Africans get used for such cheap PR stunts.. Yeh! as if she will look after the poor wee soul - he/she will be passed on to some nanny..and only brought out in public for some Hello! or OK! pic's..
2006-10-12 07:36:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
She actually did donate a considerable sum of money to the orphanage.
But otherwise its just Madonna, a good publicity stunt
2006-10-12 07:40:05 · answer #7 · answered by Starlight 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
dont know how it can b a good think to pick 1 child out of the millions that r suffering. i totally agree with ya, putting money towards helping a greater number of ppl would be much better. although she may not have made the papers by doing that! funny how cameras were around when all this was happening!!!
2006-10-12 07:33:28 · answer #8 · answered by nippauk2001 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think she has enough money to do both. adopting a baby was the better one for publicity! Following the likes of Angelina and Nicole and all the other 'publicity shy' celebreties.
2006-10-12 07:39:11 · answer #9 · answered by allseasons 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you the amount of money she has she could look after the whole village instead of taking a baby away from its roots and where it belongs
2006-10-12 07:35:45 · answer #10 · answered by nancy_habershon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋