is this yet another publicity grabbing stunt from the once queen of pop. Besides she wont be caring for the child she'll have a bloody nanny do it?
2006-10-17 10:32:03 · 21 answers · asked by wildwood081 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Sorry MGN2006 but you're wrong. This is a very blatant publicity move to try to ride the new celeb trend of adopting third world children ala Angelina Jolie. Madonna is becoming more and more irrelevant; OP said it..she's the "once" queen of pop. People are becoming tired of her and it's showing in lagging music sales (not that she needs them now-or with her lifestyle, maybe she does). This is just an attempt to try to get some "pub"...and I'll bet money that, other than for photo ops or other reasons to be "seen" with "her" child, she'll hardly ever even see or be with the kid, unless some magazine wants to do a photo shoot of course. It's all about the status. Otherwise, why make sure everyone knows about it? If it's all about the kid, then just go over there and quietly do it, no fanfare, no press conferences, no paparazzi. All about the child? Gimme a break. There are untold thousands of children in the US and Europe who are just as deserving... but a third world child makes for a better story and more attention. How noble...
2006-10-17 11:00:20 · answer #1 · answered by answerman63 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How can you go to a country where most children live in poverty and choose one child. A child that is not even an orphan but the father is quite happy to sign the adoption papers and wave his child goodbye. A child, that from the pictures seen, is very handsome for his young age. Not a disability in sight. If Madonna really wanted to make a difference to a young life then why didn't she adopt a child with no parents and one that would struggle in life through disability or something like that? The reason being is that it wouldn't of suited her show biz family. It's all the rage to adopt children from third world countries but they have to be special looking or they don't get picked. Madonna and any celebrity that adopts a child like they are choosing a new handbag makes me sick.
2006-10-17 10:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by Tabbyfur aka patchy puss 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Madonna's marriage is rumoured to be in trouble, that was why they went to S.A. If that is true then the poor mite will have another upheaval to contend with. Money is not everything and a loving stable home with your family is more important. Madonna should have helped to keep the family together, as the youngster was not an orphan, but put into care by its father who could not afford to keep the child. Why the haste to adopt a foreign child when there are a few thousand children in this country who need adopting? Just another celebrity fad no doubt.
2006-10-17 10:50:51 · answer #3 · answered by hakuna matata 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If she had given the money that it has taken to "buy" this baby to the father in the first place there would have been PLENTY of money left over to sponsor the rest of the boken families in Malawi. If she really wanted to adopt in a private way without the publicity then she would have done it legally.
-She saw pictures of children that met HER criteria before getting on a plane-illegal
-She is adpoting from a nation that does not allow foreign nationals to adopt-illeagal
-She is graned the child's gardian within a couple of days (which should have taken a year(s)-illegal
Giving money, centres and "help" (Kabbalah) in exchange for a child is sick! There was no need to take a child away from it's father.
2006-10-17 11:22:08 · answer #4 · answered by buzybee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The child's mother died and the father put the baby in a orphanage only because he was too poor to care for him. Children belong with their biological parents, in their own cultures and countries if possible. If Madonna wasn't pulling a publicity stunt, why didn't she give the father enough money to raise the child instead of adopting him herself? The baby isn't an orphan!
I think it was a publicity stunt to take the limelight off Brad and Angelina.
2006-10-17 10:56:07 · answer #5 · answered by Debra D 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why does this have to be a publicity stunt? Madonna certainly dosn't need to do anything to bring her in the spotlight, she has made it! I don't see any harm in her adopting a little one from a foreign country, she is able to provide and give him what he needs, something he would not have got!
Maybe she does have a nanny, so what? I am sure the kids she allready has have no complaints about her being a mum.
I'm not a huge fan of hers but saying she was once the queen of pop is a bit harsh..... she's not doing to bad in the charts right now is she?
2006-10-17 10:56:20 · answer #6 · answered by bingolil 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Could have helped a lot more kids with the money she has spent on this stunt. If she wanted to adopt, why Malawi, why not England or America?
2006-10-19 10:52:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have an open mind about this at present as I can't be sure if it is a publicity stunt, or if she has a real passion to help this particular child. ( why not one of our own orphan's )
Who will be "mummy" when she is performing on stage, or for that matter, a world tour?
My concerns regarding this matter are that the child may now become the victim of a kidnap plot, to be held for ransom.
Also, has this opened the doors for the likes of Garry Glitter or Jonathan Ross etc. to simply buy a child for their own, sick gratification.
2006-10-18 02:19:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently, she's got to go through all the legal process to adopt the child, and it may take a few years. And as you say, she'll get someone else to take care of him. When rich people like her adopt a child, I always think that they should sponsor to improve the standard of orphanages, hospitals, schools and poor communities with what they have in stead. They can get rid of mines from many countries too, so fewer parents get killed in mine accidents, meaning fewer orphans.
2006-10-17 13:07:07 · answer #9 · answered by ono 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know there's a saying.."start as you mean to continue"? Well, I think the fact that she "forgot" to get the boy a passport, left the country without him and and got one of her "people" to bring him here says it all. I'm sick and tired of people gabbing on about how much better his life will be! He has a family and a culture, and unless she plans on giving him access to both then what's the point? And this child isn't an ORPHAN..he has a father who couldn't look after him. Surely his interests would have better served if Madge had given his father enough money to provide for him for the rest of his life?
2006-10-17 11:16:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋