a rigorous adoption process? Normally, yes, adoption from Malawi is not open to those outside the border and parents outside the child's culture etc. but surely if Madonna has paid £1.6m (as a gift to the orphanage) then wouldn't it be better to leave her alone, and concentrate on the benefits of that money to the orphanage, money it could've only dreamed of before?
2006-10-17 04:28:04 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
buying children is illegal. Even as a 'gift' it is outrageous that for £1.6 million somebody gets special treatment. The rules are that way not only to make sure that the children are going to a good home, but to protect them from being sold into domestic and/or sexual slavery, they are in the children's best interests and should not be waved for anyone.
What Madonna is doing is a fantastic thing, but she should not be given special treatment on the grounds of her wealth or fame.
2006-10-17 04:38:33 · answer #1 · answered by Sarah 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In a way I agree with you but there are thousands of couples in this country that want to adopt at home or abroad who have to go through the demanding and lengthy process of pre-adoption screening before they can even be considered. Why just because she has money should Madonna, or any other person with money, be able to bypass the system? Surely it is not just the money donated to the orphanage that's important but the well being of the child.
I'm not an expert on Madonna but who looks after her natural children whilst she's off on her latest tour? If she leaves it to nannies, how is the child any better off in the UK, away from his biological family and friends? It's all very well having material things but it is going to take him a long while to adjust to his new life and I hope that his adoptive parents are in it for the long haul.
2006-10-17 11:44:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Think about it....Some weirdo Gary Glitter type - turns up in some poor orphanage - splashing the ££$$$ ...and is allowed to buy " children " ... do you think that's ok! ..if you do then sorry but you are no better than them.. ! Madonna & the rest of these zillionaire PR hungry celebs must be stopped - Buying children is wrong - and blatantly jumping the Q..just because the Malawians where starstruck is a real travesty ..I hope the Childrens Charity that is taking Madonna to Court to block this move - doesnt except a Back Hander donation to turn a blind eye & Its a pity all the Kiss Azz Celeb do-gooders involved in save the children are being very quiet ...Madonna get out of Britain .Please...!
2006-10-17 11:45:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should her money talk and give her access to adopting a child when anyone else adopting from the same place would have to wait for 18 months, people the world over are desperate for children of their own and have no choice but to got through the red tape before they are allowed, why is Madonna been treat so different, because money talks and its so damn unfair on people who really want a child for the real reasons and not to try to show the world what a good kind person they are, she is no different from the rest of us and no exceptions should have been made for her, she can't play god with her money all the time.
2006-10-17 11:40:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I never knew children could be so expensive!
The usual cost of a child prior to their 18th birthday, is about £30,000, and I think that is a ballpark figure for negotiations.
With that sort of money, I could buy two retired race-horses, thirty donkeys from a sanctuary, 1,000 homeless dogs from Battersea and 3,000 cats from the Cat's Protection League.
With £1.6 million, I would expect to get a whole third-world country full of people.
I think poor Madonna has been ripped off by your typical African trafficker. She should have found some willing lesbian and a handsome stud to have her baby by proxy, and put the rest of the money to good use; like buying a new mansion with a playroom.
Silly woman!
Anyway, I suppose that during the full adoption process, the child will be snatched away by Social Services and fostered on some grotty council estate at the ratepayer's expense, until someone decides that Maddona can support the child and isn't a known serial-killer.
2006-10-17 12:04:37 · answer #5 · answered by musonic 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, that would mean any rich person could bypass the procedures - they could be anyone.
Should they just sell her the child? As that it what it would be. I'm sure some paedophiles are millionaires, maybe they should just be able to buy a child, hey it doesn't matter coz the orphanage will be well off. Why should she be exempt from rules other people follow because she is rich. That is ridiculous, the interests of the child are paramount and no amount of money can make up for that..
2006-10-17 11:55:11 · answer #6 · answered by Kate 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO NO NO NO
money does not a good parent make, the fact she has managed to buy a child with a nice donation does not and should not exclude her from the rigors of an adoption process, the same as other people. Good grief, why should some pop star have a wavier - she is not any better than any one else and not above the law, or rather should not be..
2006-10-17 11:40:33 · answer #7 · answered by dianafpacker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
2 things just don't sit right with me.
1, yet another celeb taking a child from a poor country, out of the enviroment they have only known into a life with constant media attention. A life where even we would find it difficult to feel comfortable when you are in the spotlight of the world.
2, I'm not happy about how the process of adoption has been bypassed by money, she only met the boy 2 weeks ago, hardly seen him in that time yet he's arrived here in the UK today.
It takes over 2 years for the ordinary man on the street to adopt a child, yet money or her celebrity status has cut this down to to two weeks. Why couldn't she adopt one of the thousands of homeless children that are in this country or in the US?
2006-10-17 11:43:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think she has bought the child, nor has she donated her money kindly so she can have a slave child in her home!!! That is a ridiculous thought. I think she wanted more kids and age wasn't on her side and also probably wished she'd had more children earlier in her life so her other children would have siblings to play with. I think what she has done is noble and very kind. Anyone who thinks she has bought the child is an imbecile, she has donated money to the orphanage so the other children there in Malawi can have a better life too.
Another thing, alot of you are saying is that she should not have been allowed to adopt the child by donating money to the orphange, tell me would any of you have adopted the child out of the kindness of your heart?
2006-10-17 11:44:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
If Money = Quick Adoption, then rich people can create their own private human zoos with children from all nations! (Like Angelina Jolie is doing.)
2006-10-17 12:12:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋