So shes got lots of cash, good for her. Shes entitled to adopt just like anyone else. Theres so much crap in the world today and the press have to pick on someone doin something decent in the world. It really annoys me, this boys life will change so much for the better, so whats the big deal. Leave her alone and let the shits in this world get the grief and bad publicity they deserve.
2006-11-03 02:37:28 · 22 answers · asked by stellafosterhypnotherapist 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
My beef with her, is why Africa? america has so many orphened children that need a good home, but it just seems like that all the stars want to make a difference in another country rather that here at home, and just makes me sick to my stomach. I will boycott any actress/singer/star who venture into other countries. Try walking down any American big city, and tell me how many homeless families you see that are in dire need.
2006-11-03 02:42:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't say what she did was wrong, but wow... imagine what what a great example it would have been for her to adopt an AMERICAN child... no less needy but also waiting for a home and a family. I know the PA and WV websites have hundreds of children waiting to be adopted and I'm sure every other state does too. There are so many sibling groups in need of a home and most will NEVER have a home. You don't need to leave your state, let alone country to help children. Note should be taken by all - not just Madonna. God bless. ~Nise~
2006-11-03 02:44:19 · answer #2 · answered by newfsdrool 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
One of my staff comes from the country this boy is from. I asked him about this and he was telling me that the locals are happy for the youngster and the father is being manipulated by the press. He was also telling me that all this talk saying the father wants him back etc is being orchestrated so that the adoption agencies can extract more money from Madonna. Everyone over there is happy the boy will have a better life and so is the father and he apparently has not said he want's him back.
2006-11-03 02:43:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
i totally agree with you but the media think that it is wrong because there were a lot of other kids in the orphanage and they probly thought that they was gonna be picked, so its quite sad they weren't and they are criticising her because they say she dittan go through the whole adoption process like everyone else and used her star status to quicken things up. The media talk all kind of **** but personally i think she did a wonderful thing buy adopting David and she is gon give him a better life and a great future.
2006-11-03 05:02:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I feel alot of people think she did it strictly for the publicity. Yes, the child will have a better life (living in a fishbowl, tho), but, she adopted for all the wrong reasons--------for publicity.
Angelina Jolie has been going to Africa and other places for a long time, actually working in the field with the people. She has given millions of her own money to support child care in third world nations. And, Madonna lets the hired help raise her children. Angelina is raising her own children, with help, but her children are always with her.
There is alot of differences in the two of them.
2006-11-03 02:47:59 · answer #5 · answered by Shossi 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with adoption,there are so many needy children out there and if it changes their lives all well and good.The only thing i don't agree with is the speed at which the adoption was done.Many people adopt but your "normal" person has to go through loads of paperwork and vetting, and months ,or years in some cases,of waiting. Why should it be arranged quicker just because of who you are.There are a lot of would be adoptive people who are asking that question.I personally know someone who waited 18 months and it all fell through,they were devastated.
2006-11-03 03:41:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Reason #1:
---------------
The child will be raised by a nanny and Madonna will only have him around when the paparazzi are around, a replacement for Gucci.
Reason #2:
--------------
There are orphans in England. Why can't she adopt and support one of her own people.
Reason #3:
--------------
The boys father and grandfather are alive. Therefore he is not an orphan. If she really wanted a child of Africa it's not like she couldn't find a proper orphan. Why seperate that family?
Reason #4:
--------------
Is there something wrong with her body that she can't reproduce and have her own children?
2006-11-03 04:57:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good job Madonna. She's making one life better by doing this. How many people can say they've really substantially made someone's life better?
It doesn't matter where she adopts the child from or the child's race. Why is that so important? A life is a life and a child is a child. Every child should have a good life. This is the child she felt a connection with. People shouldn't have to explain these things.
Maybe people are just jealous that she didn't adopt them. I wouldn't mind if she adopted me at all.
2006-11-03 02:42:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's Madonna. That boy would be better off with someone else. There are many people in the US that could have taken him, and The poor little boys gets stuck with Madonna
2006-11-03 02:46:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I was absolutely appalled when i was watching the EMA's last night with Borat and Avid Merrion taking the mick all night. Madonna has got her own reasons for adopting the boy, i wish people would stop saying she bought a baby, you dont pay when you adopt!
Im not saying i necessarily agree with it im sure there are plenty of children in the UK and America that need her help but thats up to her. If it was any normal couple (not famous) it wouldnt be questioned
2006-11-03 02:41:04 · answer #10 · answered by jenna p 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋