Is adopting 1 of the 13 million orphans and vulnerable children in Africa the best long-term solution?

Answer 1

The sole criterion is supposed to be "the best interests of the child". But sometimes political correctness overrides that.

After all: who you get as parents, and how much money you inherit, is inherently luck. So is adoption.

Answer 2

If there are 13 million rich people willing to look after the orphans then the answer is yes.
As there probably isn't then the answer is no. I think it will be good for the "Madonna Child" if the adoption goes through.
I am always very suspicious of celebrities who do this sort of thing, as it seems like a publicity stunt or that little black orphans are this years "Must Have" fashion item. What to do long term is not easy as Africa is rife with Aids and the political leaders are not always reliable or honest and don't really care about the poor as they don't usually vote.

Answer 3

The best long term solution results in reductions of births and reduced infant mortality. If there are 13 million orphans and vulnerable children in Africa as you say, then this might act as a warning to excessive rates of childbirth.

What problem is solved by adoption?

Answer 4

No its not.

Especially whern the child has living relatives who had to give the poor little thing up because of poverty. How cruel is that???

That is inhuman. If I had to give up my baby I would kill myself - seriously I would not be able to go on living. He is my world. Having him taken away to another country by a rich foreigner because I was too poor to feed him would finish me off.

These poor people should be given help so that their families can stay together, not have their child taken away by a rich American pop star or actress. People in Africa should be iven help and support to adopt orphans so they can be brought up in their own culture and country.

Its digusting to think Madonna is spending £5,000 on a stupid Harrods rocking horse for that baby of hers when that money could have fed and housed him and his father or provided their village with clean water, medical care etc. £5,000 goes a long way in Africa. For Madonna its the price of a new Gucci Handbag (that poor baby is not much more really - he's a fashion accessory. Everyone must have one DAHling)

The third world needs to be supported to provide for their vulnerable children. Poor families should NOT have their children taken away from them by rich over indulged westerners who like the idea of having a little brown baby. The trade in Africans was made illegal in the 19th Century.

Presumably however, some of the idiots posting here beleive every child born to poor parents in Africa should be taken away from them and adopted by Westerners.

Because thats REALLY going to solve the problem isn't it? (Sarcasm in case you missed it)

Answer 5

Its absolutely THE best solution to help spoiled celebrities like Madonna and Angelina Jolie justify their own obscenely extravagant lifestyles.

It will adequately function to make said celebrity feel superior to the working class people (who idolize them) by trying to install the same guilty feelings in them Without regard to their lack of resources to lavish buffets and mansions on a child used to rice gruel and a series of orphanages.

Sadly, No One can "donate" a country or continent into prosperity. All the food "Aid" and free medicine in the world doesn't built roads and bridges and infrastructure. You can't "adopt" the jobs needed to build the internal wealth any country needs to help its own people

Answer 6

Good for that little boy. However, it might be nice if these super wealthy would 'adopt' a village or something - the amount that little boy is likely to have lavished on him over his lifetime with Madonna would probably build wells and schools and clinics for a whole town of people in the area from which he came.

Answer 7

The problem remains the same. The Bastards that run these countries are backward at best. The level of moral education of most is nill. The only way to rid the world of this great tragedy is to educate, educate, educate no more money but for education no food or money will ever get the leaders of such places to follow the basic humanitarian needs, were only prolonging their suffering no more handouts but to directly affect the problem.

Answer 8

No.
It is the rich's way of taking advantage of the vulnerable. Instead of helping the problem - which is lack of education and money thus meaning not enough food/water/shelter, adopting is a way of looking like the hero.

Answer 9

just imagine how much money that is to them. how much food and medicine can they get for the other orphans? that will last a long , long time.
there are so many sides to this story. i've heard that up to 1/3 of the people have HIV/aids so aids awareness is key to this area.
with the adoptions (not to mention the money from media), any idea how much food and medicine that is for these people?
why can't people everywhere get the meds they need for this price? - as i said, so many sides to this story.

Answer 10

It's a start, and it highlights the situation in a positive way that people aren't bored of hearing already.
She could have done 10 though couldn't she?

Does he have the same rights to her estate as the other sprogs?

If she wanted a braaahhhn baybeee why didn't she do what the other girls on the estate do and get herself a nice coloured boyfriend?