has she really done what's best for that poor kid, or is it just another one of her shock tactics to keep herself in the public eye? is this new "adopt-a-kid-from-a-thirdworld- country" thing just a new trend from these sad celebs that have too much money and want to not be seen as the selfish, publicity hounds that they really are? fast forward 15 years from now.......how will the kids end up?
2006-10-21 02:11:53 · 35 answers · asked by canada grl 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
do you know that she actually had someone "pick" this kid out of a bunch of them, how friggin' deranged is that?
2006-10-21 02:17:14 · update #1
maybe she should have given all this money to the families so they could actually care for this poor thing themselves!
2006-10-21 02:20:04 · update #2
'Madge' should be charged with child abduction because the babies Father doesn't want the 'deal' to go ahead. He was clearly emotional in a recent TV interview and I got the impression that he's been somewhat bullied into deciding to let baby 'David' go.
It's painfully obvious to see the real story behind this, Madonna thought she can use her fame and notoriety to bend the rules governing child's welfare. Well sorry 'Madge' you can't play GOD this time. She's has been so used to getting her own way for countless years, she had assumed that adopting a third world baby would be a breeze and that her God-like fame would give her the green light to bypass the law.
I sincerely hope this 'deal' doesn't go ahead and baby David is returned to his Father, despite the extreme poverty the child will have to endure, at least he will be loved by his natural family.
2006-10-24 15:16:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would like to think she has done it for all the right reasons, but why make it so public. For example, people like Cliff Richard was working in and for 3rd World Countries with the Christian Organization "Tear Fund" for years and it was never mentioned. Until Bob Geldof decided that he was on the way out and brought the world's attention to.....Bob Geldof, oh yes ....and Africa.
I fear Madonna is trying to do the same thing, but I hope I'm wrong. I suppose you could say that, at least this child will want for nothing, unlike the millions of kids elsewhere in Africa and to be honest, all over the world. I think she could have adopted a hundred children and it would be nothing to her financially. Can you really see her tending to the child 24/7, she'll have a Nanny to look after her, if not a team of child carer's.
As for the long term effect on the child, I do agree with you, in 15 years, how will the child end up?
2006-10-21 02:24:48 · answer #2 · answered by patch 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Y is every one having a huge go at her? No body knows the full details on how long she has been wanting to adopt this kid. When ever Angelina Jolie adopted - nobody cared.
Fast forward 15 years and yes he may be in the press alot, but fast forward 15 years in his homeland and he could be dead!!!
I think the ironic thing is that this kid still has a dad.
She could be doing it for a publicity stunt - but then again she is giving him a better life. I would rather be followed by the media than having poor water, nothing to eat and the possibility of dying of starvation, thirst or dysentery. In a couple of years I don't think any one will care. He will only be in the press on his birthdays and so forth. No body will have a day to day account of what he has been up to.
2006-10-21 02:23:31 · answer #3 · answered by PeachyPies 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That baby's mother died in childbirthafter two miscarriages.
His poor father had to give him up to the orphanage through poverty. He apparently hoped to have him back one day if things imporved.
How that selfish ***** can waltz in and take the baby away I don't know.
She has NOT done what is best for that kid.
Yeah he'll grow up a spoiled western brat with more designer clothes and toys than he knows what to do with. Meanwhile he has been taken from his family his culture and his country.
How she could take a child away from his family who love him but are too poor to care for him is inconceivable! Selfish cow!
She has now spent £5,000 ona stupid rocking horse form Harrods for the little boy - he is too small to use it.
That money could have fed his family, re housed them or allowed the village to build a well, employ a doctor etc. £5,000 is a lot of money in Africa.
For Madonna its the price of a new Gucci handbag. And this poor baby is not much more to her
If she cared about this little boy she could have sponsored him to allow him to remain with his family. And adopted a real orphan, preferably one from Britain or America who will not be taken away from his culture.
But like most over indulged rich celebs she's too selfish.
2006-10-21 07:41:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know Madonna as a person. So its unfair to make comment on her. And also as for being a selfish publicity stunt, we would not know about it if the papers and photographers did not follow her around.Think about it. All the photographers were interested in was Madonna when they were at that village.Then they ate nicely and got on their planes and left it the poor country behind with photographs.The press is self-interest these days. I do not care about what Madonna does in her life. If the press is going to do something constructive, perhaps they should have focused on the plight of the village first.
Madonna through her music she has made many people happy. If she can make the child happy it is good. She watched the same images about Ethopia as we did, which resulted in Live Aid. Of course she has sympathy.At that time, we all united as one, behind that.
She wants to do something good, let her.Her intentions are good. Why do people want to look at it badly?
2006-10-21 02:36:22 · answer #5 · answered by Lazarus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I cant see why she took a child from a parent (the boy named david, apparently, has a father) why not use some of her millions to make the village the boy was from a better place for all the kids why just one?
i dont get it i really dont she would of made more of a diffrence and earn't more respect by building them a school etc
If 'normal people like you and me want to adopt we dontline em up and pick out like a new Louis Vuittion bag
This womans acts towards the child have sickened me
2006-10-21 02:24:40 · answer #6 · answered by ♥Pink Princess♥ 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
American Pie, Material Girl, Border Line, Papa Don't Preach
2016-05-22 07:25:25 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is sad that she is using these children to get more publicity. What made me even more angry was when the baby arrived in the UK within a few hours she went off to the gym. If she really cared about that child she would have stayed in and trying to give him some stability.
She is talking about adopting another child now, how can she even consider this yet without settling the other child first!!!
2006-10-21 02:36:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's sort of 50/50 the child is bein rescued from a hopeless situation given and opportunity to live in an environment where they have access to the best education, never b hungry, scared, dirty, or neglected again...
And yes, it does make Madonna look good in the process, and with all that money the should b buildin orphanges in these 3rd world countries not just savin one child at a time....
2006-10-21 02:16:31 · answer #9 · answered by Darsh(Say it like u mean it) 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
She had an Elder in the Village 'Select' 5 Children from the So-Called 'Orphanage'.
She Hummed and Arred then chose a Boy!(Who happens to have a Father-Hence NOT an Orphan!!)
The Father of this Child will no Doubt Be very Comfortable with the Financial package he Received in order to Seal the 'Deal'
I'm sickened by the Whole process!!
Money= doing whatever your selfish 'Needs' and 'Desires' allow you to get away with!
2006-10-21 02:16:04 · answer #10 · answered by J. Charles 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋