i really disagree with it,i think she should have left the baby where he was and just sponsored him and his family,she could pay to keep him well and fed and healthy and that way at least he gets to grow up with his father in his own country.
2006-10-25 12:54:29 · 20 answers · asked by Bird 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Tough one...I think that she should have adopted a child from this country.One of the sad things about this case is that the money which will be spent on this particular child during it's lifetime could help change the lives of countless other children in Africa.
2006-10-25 13:09:53 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that the baby is going to have a better standard of life now that Madonna has adopted it, than if it had been left to rot in an orphanage. So what if Madonna has millions in the bank & she's a high profile star - other families have adopted babies and there's no mention of them sponsoring the family instead. These families are applauded for doing their 'bit' and helping the underprivileged. Just because Madonna's famous, the press (and public) have slaughtered her for it!! I don't think it's fair - and I think we should leave them to get on with their lives and enjoy their new adoptive son!
2006-10-25 13:11:32 · answer #2 · answered by Lisa B 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I dont understand what the fuss is all about. People have adopted kids from foreign countries before, and its still happening. Angelina has done it, not once, but twice. Madge can do a lot for the kid in terms of educating, feeding, clothing and housing the child( these are the basic needs of a human being, right? and the child cant get these in malawi). I think madonna should be left alone. Good luck to her
2006-10-25 13:15:31 · answer #3 · answered by missb 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who helps/sponsors children is doing a good thing.
But is it a bit ghoulish the way these millionaire celebrities hang around helping an impoverished area ,and then just happen to adopt a child from the area?
Honestly,how would you say no to a millionaire who has done so much to help your community?
Still, I hope it all works out for the best, and I wish it hadn't been given so much coverage,it should be a private thing.
M
2006-10-25 14:03:51 · answer #4 · answered by mesmerized 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I only know the details put out in the media. I can appreciate your views, but do not know if what you would like to have happened was a possibility. I agree that it is better to improve the life in a country, than to rescue someone from it. But we are all individuals, and have our own way of doing things, and the publicity over this, is only because Madonna is famous. It is not easy raising children.
2006-10-25 14:57:47 · answer #5 · answered by Sprinkle 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The media did not have all the information, and grew to change into this finished component right into a circus. apparently the daddy signed some paper artwork delivering his rights to Madonna, or particularly giving her permission to undertake him. I do believe if she did not go by the suitable criminal channels she must have. yet on the different part everyone might want to artwork at the same time for the suitable interest of the youngster. To me that would want to be for her to take him. the different option will be placed him decrease back into that run down orphanage the position he became hungry and sickly. Or deliver him to stay at the same time with his father in a negative village dealing with an same destiny or worse.
2016-12-05 05:48:04 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, I think they should let her adopt the baby. She can do so much more for him than what his family could have. and as far as just sponsering the baby and leaving him where he was, how was she to know that the baby would even get a cent of that money??? I belive she had good intentions, and that baby is better of in her custody than to be left for dead somewhere else.
At times I do feel like it was all for attention though, but she is saving a life and we should at least be happy with that.
As for us, I say why stress over what you can't change? Let the woman be, she tried doing a good thing and everyone jumps on her back for it. put your self in her shoes.
2006-10-25 13:03:01 · answer #7 · answered by xbluemoonfaeryx 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
She donated money to provide for something like 150 children there. That shows good intent. I don't get the desire to single one child out for adoption tho. The press can be cruel and blow things out of proportion on anyone. I tend to dismiss a lot of the news as irrelevant or distorted.
2006-10-25 16:42:33 · answer #8 · answered by gatzap 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think it is her own business. She made a choice, just like many other adoptive parents out there. Just because she is in the public eye does not mean that the public should have a say in her family.
2006-10-25 13:02:41 · answer #9 · answered by coppersmith 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Good for her she is giving a poor child a decent chance at life, why don't people leave the woman alone, or are there lives so boring, don't judge others, at least she is helping , PS. i don't like her music, but that is not the point.!!!
2006-10-25 13:14:19 · answer #10 · answered by JAM123 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋