What gives Madonna the right...?

Question

... to adopt a baby, who isn't even an orphan. Whats wrong with giving a British child a home?

I agree with Dazmac, she couldn't buy one over here. And i would suggest to those of you who say poverty isn't rife in this country, to think again.

Most of you are missing my point. Why not a British (or America) child, and why not a true orphan. How is taking a baby away from his family and his culture ever going to be right. And those of you who think the father was not paid.... what planet are you on? Baby David is a fashion accessory, just as Angelinas children are.... "Do they come on Black?" ... "No, you'll have to buy one in Africa"

Answer 1

Money

((edit))

I forgot the celebrity status

Answer 2

She can do what she wants however I do get your point do you know how many children are living in this country well below the povert line and orphans or just up for adoption due to bad care or no parents. I would have repected her far more if she had adopted here or in America and even more if it was a child with a disability there are thousands of those lovely children without parents and most likely never will have.
Our country is so bad that we one day will be classed as third world and people will adopt from here i kid you not.Thousand of very needy children starving, abused etc needing proper homes and loving families.

Answer 3

I agree totally.

Its appalling that she took that child away from his poor father (who's already lost his wife). The poor man had to give his child up because he was too poor to care for him. He was hoping one day if things got better to have his son back. Selfish *****.

And she's wasting £5,000 on a stupid Harrods Rocking Horse which the poor little mite isn't even old enough to use! That money could have allowed him and his father to stay together - could have provided clean water, medical care etc for the whole village!

£5,000 is a lot of money in Africa. For Madonna its the price of a new Gucci Handbag. I feel the baby is not much more to her than a fashion accessory - something to spend money on.

That baby is not an orphan and if she cared about him at all she would donate that oney to allow him and his father to be together.

There ARE orphans in this world. There are plenty of children in Britain who need a home. She could have adopted one of them and left poor little Davie with his OWN family in his OWN culture and his OWN country.

And made sure he didn't go hungry either. She could have sponsored him. even if she spent £200 a month supporting him it would be peanuts to her but would mean the world for him and his family.

She is a selfish *****. How would she feel about giving up one of her own children???

I feel the desperately poor people of Africa are being exploited by rich idiots like her. Makes me very angry. I thought the trade in Africans was illegal?

Answer 4

Simple - PUBLICITY!!! She is close to 50 now, her music is not nearly as popular as it once was, she wants to keep the $$ rolling in. The more attention you get, the more $$.

Look how much publicity Anglina Jolie got by adopting her children. Big difference, though: She adopted ORPHANS that had NO mothers or fathers, and truly loves these adopted children.

I think what Madonna has done is sick, and I think the father of that child is even sicker for giving his child up. If she wanted to do something for that kid, why didn't she move them out of poverty, buy the father a home and set up a bank account/trust for him and his child? Why didn't she adopt a TRUE orphan?

I guess she is bored with buying houses, pets, clothes and jewelry - now she's going to start buying people.

Answer 5

I totally disagree, until you have been to this child's home and seen the oprhanage he was in you have no right to say that!!! I am malawian, I have visited uncles and grandparents who live in such circumstances! It is not the same as here, orphangaes are worse than prisons over here!!!

I am so angry that people would say the things thay have about this adoption! At the end of the day the father gave him to the orphanage, hee has agreed to give him up!!! She has not paid them or anything so he could have said no if he didn't want it to happen, but he knows that this is the best thing that could have hapened to the child.

People, get of your benefits and go live in malawi for a day and see what people have to survive through every second then coms back and talk about her doing the wrong thing

Answer 6

How is what Madge did any different from what Angelina did...TWICE. Come on people...one less kid eating flies for dinner, it doesn't matter what she did. Theres enough kids to go around and maybe more celebrities with money to burn should set aside the gift baskets they get for saying "and the winner is" and open up their own wallets to help some of these 3rd world countries. The US and Britain have govenment programs that aid orphans and adoption homes. Places such as where this little boy is have nothing. They survive on $2 a week. The father is thankful that his boy will be getting a better life...something EVERY parent should want for their child. At the same time the orphanage is getting $3,000,000 and one of the stipulations for Madge is that this boy must be taught about his culture. Humanitarism in any form shouldn't be dissed.

Answer 7

It's an insult to the thousands of everyday joes who have to jump through hoops and wait years sometimes without success to adopt a child. Malawi has a law saying non-residents cannot adopt - cue celebrity + a few million quid and surprise it's a done deal. The stupid bint even got her PA to bring the baby back to the UK (ever the loving mother madonna!). If she was that concerned why not bung the dad a few quid and see his kid right. Why not a british kid - not black enough? not poor enough? no because like a spoilt child she wants things now and she'd have to wait in line over here. But hey, her publicity sky rockets - pathetic!

Answer 8

Why is it anyone else's business and why ever shouldn't she adopt a child who isn't British or American? It's down to personal choice! She's done something good and kind, which has nothing to do with anyone else but her and she hasn't harmed anyone else in the process. Quite frankly, it's refreshing to see a celebrity giving this much thought to poor, needy people rather than watch all the other famous people (who aren't even as talented) having more money than they know what to do with and throwing it away on rubbish.

People who busy themselves judging and criticising others based on nothing but assumptions should keep their noses out and concentrate on perfecting their own lives!

Answer 9

I have already answered this question made by another
person and gave an example that my daughter jumped the
queue in order to save a child who had a serious heart
condition and required more than one surgical open heart
operation. She signed the commitment and took the child
who is now doing very well, and I am very proud of her
for doing so. Nobody else wanted to take the responsibility.
My daughter is not wealthy, she is a school teacher.

Answer 10

Same thing that gives her the right to donate $3 million to AIDS orphans in that country. She was there on a mission of good deed, saw a child, and now she's going to give him a life he never would have had in the orphanage.

His mother is dead, his father can't raise him, so he was essentially an orphan.

Nothing wrong with that.

Granted, there's nothing wrong with giving a British child a home, either. But my guess is British orphans are a lot better off than the ones in the country where her new son came from.

Answer 11

When I first heard about it I was like: You what she have to follow the rules like everyone else, but there are alot od children over there that don't have anything. If Madonna can help an orphan child over in Africa what is the big problem.