Doesn't she get it? How incapable and worthless the father must feel. Seems a shame she couldn't find a way to empower the father and keep the family together - wouldn't that be more humanitarian?
2006-10-26 04:47:07 · 13 answers · asked by larrylegend 2 in News & Events ➔ Other - News & Events
Madonna isn't a humanitarian; she's a publicity seeker trying to polish her tarnished image as a 'material girl'. As she gets older, she wants to be portrayed in the press as someone much better - and moral - than she once was when she first gained notoriety.
The problem is by 'buying' this child, her materialism only rears its ugly head again. Does anyone really believe she'll have anything to do with that child? No, hired nannies and domestic help will raise the child, only to be trotted out in front of the TV cameras on occasion for purposes of publicity and imaging.
If Madonna truly wanted to be a humanitarian, she could give all of her wealth away to African villages so that all African youth can live better, healthier lives. -RKO-
2006-10-26 05:08:10 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why is everyone on Madonna case. No one else who adopts a child empowers the parents. I am sure that Angelina didn't empower the parents of the children that she adopted. How does anyone know for sure that what the father is saying is true? Is it because the media said it? Come on people don't believe everything that you hear. I believe that he knew what he was getting into because I am sure that he had translators there. It is my understanding that Madonna promised to bring the boy back to visit. How many adoptees can say that? I believe that the father is having second thoughts and now he wants to renege on the agreement. I think that she should take the child back to his father and leave it alone. Maybe try with another family or something. Besides if what they say about the father is true why wouldn't he want a better life, education, and better health care for his child. 2 thumbs up to Graham H.
2006-10-28 08:34:43 · answer #2 · answered by juicie813 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Her objective was to adopt a baby. It was not to charitably keep a family together. So she had choices, orphans or neglected children. She chose a neglected child whos father could not take care of him and as a result the child was very ill.
She offered an 'everyone wins' deal to the father. He doesn't lose his child to starvation, disease and death. He knows his child will become one of the most privelidged people on earth.
If I were the David I wouldn't thank you for saving me from a life of privielige, wealth and opportunity in favour of a destitute life in Malawi.
When the David is grown he will have an unlimited opportunity to do anything he wants for his father.
At 1 year old david will adjust and as a father I hope that I would have the love not to deprive my child of the unique opportunity for the life of a star which David will now have.
I think you are jealous, of Madonna and David. Up to you, you would love and protect him into an early and poverty striken death.
2006-10-26 05:04:20 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your thoughts exactly? Are you kidding me? She can't help every single poor person the free world. She didn't go there to help out a grown man, she went to help a defenseless child, and give that child a better life. Give her a break. She's trying to do something nice and helpful, and people keep giving her crap. Let the woman raise a child for goodness sake. I guarantee it, the only reason that people are picking on her is because she's Madonna. If she were some other rich person (who is NOT in the spotlight) no one would care. Leave the woman alone.
2006-10-26 05:08:15 · answer #4 · answered by BeezKneez 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As others have observed, the federal government would not have the authority to speculate in homeless, here or overseas. There are thirty-something particular powers vested interior the three branches of government. The 10th replace is then very sparkling pointing out that something no longer particularly granted to the feds or prohibited to the states is granted to the states or the persons. ought to somebody element out the Federal training replace? Or the Federal Arts replace? Or the Federal Drug Enforcement replace? Or the Federal.... you get the assumption.
2016-11-25 21:46:08 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm no fan of Madonna's but good grief I think this whole controversy is ridiculous. According to an article in the USA today, that child had basically been abandoned. The father didn't even visit the child.
2006-10-26 04:55:22 · answer #6 · answered by mei-lin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because like most "stars" she is a self absorbed, self important little idiot, who thinks the world revolves around her and to hell with anyone else.
She has what she wants, the rest is unimportant to her.
2006-10-26 05:29:25 · answer #7 · answered by Alan F 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because she wants another child. Besides, he doesn't agree only because he won't get any money through the adoption. He initially agreed to it. The selfish bastard!
2006-10-26 05:01:50 · answer #8 · answered by strawberrysocks 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes my thoughts exactly.
2006-10-26 04:54:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, and furthermore, no1 said anything when Angelina Jolie did it.
2006-10-26 05:26:09 · answer #10 · answered by Keekee 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋