It seems Madona has gotten into a little controversy regarding her recent adoption of a young African child..?

Question

Apparently she donated like $6 million to the comunity where the child comes from(Mawali,Africa) and there is a bunch of contreversy regaurding whether or not the father actually and knowingly agreed to said adoption.
My question is:Should people of America work to eradicate the problems of poverty and orphaned children in our own countries before we do so abroad?I would make the comparison that all the anti war people say:That we have to stop "worrying" about other countrie's,when we have so many issue's (drugs,poverty,orphans)on the homefront .Also I agree that the Madona's and Brangelina's of the world should be able to live there live's how they choose.

Answer 1

I keep thinking the same as you. Shouldn't we be taking care of those less fortunate in THIS country before we go saving the rest of the world. According to the news Madonna wanted to adopt an inner city youth in CA but Brangelina talked her out of it. I think that saving a child from a life of poverty and disease is noble but why has it turned into this Hollywood trend? I can't help but think it's for the publicity. Why aren't they concerned about kids who need homes in the US?

You don't necessarily have to adopt a child in this country to help them. There are a variety of ways to nurture a child without adoption and multitudes of charitable organizations.

Answer 2

An orphan in America isn't going to be left to die unlike in other countries ... China I'm looking in your direction. For this reason when we don't focus on what country a human happens to be born in and merily at the fact they are humans then those born in other countries (glances again toward China) are in more of a dire situation. So adopting them seems a greater good.

And I also agree that before we go and add problems to the world we should worry about removing them. Even if it's by not adding them and doing nothing which is better then doing the wrong thing.

Answer 3

There are not villages and orphanages full of orphans in the United States. There are plenty of poor children, but they have families. There are waiting lists for people who want to adopt healthy infants (and the reason people want infants is so that there is still the chance to bond properly, help the baby's brain and personality develop, and feel as if the child is every bit as much their own as any biological children. This cannot happen when children are two years old or older.)

In the U.S. the children who need homes tend to be older children with emotional issues as a result of abuse or else babies with so many medical conditions (frighteningly serious ones) that prospective parents are told the baby needs a home with no other children and a mother who can devote 24 hours a day to the baby's dire medical needs (tracheotomies, catheterizations, breathing apparatus, etc.).

Orphans in the U.S. tend to go with family or else into foster homes (sometimes perfectly nice, suburban, foster homes or else at least decent foster homes much of the time). People who hope to adopt infants from the foster care system agree to take a chance and care for a baby with the idea that there's the chance that baby may not go for adoption at all.

In Africa there are babies and children who will starve to death, and they are in numbers that are staggeringly related to the horrendous AIDS rate there. Women in Africa and from the U.S. donate milk in order to help these starving babies thrive. The situation there is not even comparable to what it is in the U.S., and - in spite of poverty in the U.S. - for the most part things like the food stamp program and WIC help keep children from starving.

Studies on poverty in the U.S. found things like the fact that America's poor often have televisions, microwave ovens, and cars. I'm not saying the U.S. doesn't have its poor, or even its homeless, but it is still different than poverty in other countries is.

Drugs are a problem, but people choose to take drugs in the beginning. Poverty is a problem, and many people are trying to eradicate that. The U.S. doesn't, however, have villages full of orphaned children available for adoption. Also, in North America (Canada, for example) there are sometimes Black babies who need homes but because there are fewer Black families trying to adopt and because White people are not encouraged to adopt Black babies, those babies are left without parents. That's not the fault of Madonna or any other White person who would love to adopt one of those babies.

There is no doubt there is suffering in the U.S., but the suffering in some other countries is on a completely different scale. If someone wants to adopt a child to love and also to rescue from horrible suffering, a child in a village in another country may have more urgent need than an American child who may be available to adopt. Besides, if Madonna tried to "cut" in line to adopt in the U.S. or the U.K. nobody would have had that. If she tried to find a expectant mother to agree to hand over her child she would have been accused of buying the child, and she would probably have to worry about what that mother may do in the future (claims that she did something, insisting on visiting rights, selling information about Madonna, etc.). This little boy Madonna has now has brought that type of thing in terms of his father's now claiming he didn't know what adoption is, etc.

I don't think when it comes to finding orphaned babies available for adoption and in villages where food can be a problem, the U.S. is generally where you'll find them; and I don't think, either, that there should be citizenship requirements when it comes to rescuing a child who needs it most.

Answer 4

People are people, doesnt matter where they live. If we have the means to help others we should. You just have to make sure that the organization you give to is on the up an up, and the gift goes to the people.

Answer 5

what's the most ridiculous element? demanding to say. yet as we talk the most ridiculous element I somewhat have heard about adoption is this " it type of feels they have "anti-adoptionists" the picture of anti-abortionists now. some woman called me over declaring something about the secrets and techniques of adoption," and that i informed her i replaced into followed. she then informed me i replaced into fortunate to be alive and mentally good because maximum adoptive moms and dads are abusive! she went on about how adoptive moms and dads were given thrills from "paying for a baby" and treating the baby as a servant particularly than a son or daughter. there replaced into an finished pamphlet on "the evils of adoption." i presumed it replaced into hilarious, i realized I might want to be depressing and function evil moms and dads, yet i might want to be an exception because i do not!"

Answer 6

The thing is the kid isn't even an orphan.. he has perfectly living parents..

Answer 7

Nobody Cares.