English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

* Do you think Madonna Should have adopted Baby David, when there are do many orphaned children in Africa?

* Do you think Madonna followed the right procedures when adopting him?

* Do you think Madonna adopted him as a fashion accessary or to make people think she's kind, simply because she has the money to do it?

* Any other comments?

2006-11-19 04:11:54 · 14 answers · asked by ? 3 in Family & Relationships Other - Family & Relationships

14 answers

Not sure on this one, all that money she will spend on baby David, could she not have spent it on the orphanage and more babies would have benefited?

Follow the right procedures? probably not, money talks especially in a very poor area.

Fashion accessory? Yep, quite a few celebs seem to be doing this at the moment, just wish they would all put some of that money they can never live to spend into these "orphanages" they are taking these children from.

2006-11-19 04:28:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

If you want to get technical then there are a lot of children in this country that are available for adoption still in foster care. The reason she choose Malawi is because of the work she has done there because of the AIDS epidemic and how hard it has hit that country...she has every right to choose where to adopt a child.
It all depends on whom you ask if she flaunted proceedure but in the end I suppose she did because they must have the child in their foster care for 2 years in Malawi before they can adopt. Considering the circumstances that is a little rigid and it should be taken on a case to case basis because in all instances the child should come first. That is just my opinion.
No I do not think that little David is a fashion accessary because she already has two other natural children she is raising. I imagine if you were in her position, seeing the plight of all these children, would you not wonder to yourself can I not do something more tangible for at least one of them? Why do we have to be so tied to the rules always...it is understandable if someone has had problems in the past where children are concerned but when there are no problems and when the child can be offered a better chance at life then why all the furor and controversy?
The father's rights should not be denied by any means but if it were me I would be more concerned about the future of my child and if another person could offer him or her a better life then I would do what was best for the child no matter how hard it would be.

2006-11-19 04:36:00 · answer #2 · answered by tigerlily_catmom 7 · 0 2

I think Madonna is right to have adopted, many other people (celebrities and ordinary people) do it.

Where she made a mistake is that Baby David is not an orphan. Apparently, his father visited him fairly regularly.

The impression given in the papers (if they can be believed) is that the father didn't realise his son would leave the country, and wants his baby back.

She is reported to have insisted she followed the right procedures, just that it was kept quiet as its a private family matter. I do think, however, that the approval of it was fast-tracked, given she is one of the most famous women in the world.

Others have been trying to adopt for a long while and are still waiting.

Its been reported for a while that Madonna wanted another child and was seeing various medics in that respect, so I don't think she sees Baby David as a fashion accessory.

2006-11-19 09:14:18 · answer #3 · answered by Jamma354 2 · 0 1

1. The number of orphaned children is irrelevant - she can't adopt them all. She can give her love to anyone she chooses.

2. No She's American living in Britain and sneaking him in on a US visa. She's supposed to adopt over there and live over there for a year.

3. She really cares, I think - she's been involved with supporting people in this situation for a long time. She also brought attention to the problem to the whole world.

4. Money has it's privileges - burns my backside. The child will have a more comfortable upbringing, but lose a huge part of his own cultural heritage. Good trade-off? who knows?
I think her motivations were genuine, but can see why others don't.

2006-11-19 04:22:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Madonna is my girl

I feel that she adopted him and it was legal and bind. Madonna loves children she once reported that she wanted 6 kids and since her 2 biological children already love their new baby brother he is not a fashion accessory he is someone that Madonna loves and he will now have a better life

I wish someone rich to adopt me !! LOL

2006-11-19 04:18:51 · answer #5 · answered by AngelVirgo9206 5 · 0 2

No she shouldnt if she wanted to help african orphans out she could have donated money for them to have proper schooling to work themselves out of poverty, instead of just flinging money at authorities so that she could have a baby.

I dont think she followed the right procedures and celebs like her (and bono and chris martin - you know having billions but guilting the rest of us on min wage to give over our electricity money - epescially after bono sueing a stylist for a hat!!!) do this sort of thing as if to say we are saints.

hope my rant helped

2006-11-19 20:22:15 · answer #6 · answered by Lady Claire - Hates Bigotry 6 · 0 1

yes i think she should have adopted david. by doing this she has changed one babys life for the better.
however, she made many claims which were further denied by the babys father, that david had many diseases etc.
it seems as if she wanted as much recognition for adopting a child, as angelina jolie did.
however this did not go to plan and it has backfired on her.
but ppl need to jst let her be and do what she can to give this child a happy life.

2006-11-19 04:14:11 · answer #7 · answered by samalicious 1 · 0 2

I think her intentions were good but just because a child comes from a poor African country does not mean they should be adopted to a mega-rich popstar. I think she could have sponsored the child, payed his way to a good school and cared for him without taking out of his country. It is also sad because she is taking him away from his father.

2006-11-19 04:17:10 · answer #8 · answered by ericaofgordon 5 · 1 2

1) She needed press coverage, so did it.

2) Everyone involved admits that correct procedures weren't followed, she paid for an orphanage she gets a kid

3) The kid wasn't even an orphan

4) The kid was going to someone else before she threw her money into the ring

5) The kid has been left alone, or with staff, most of the time since he was adopted ... Madge has been too busy going to the Gym

2006-11-19 04:15:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

why shouldnt she!
nobody kicked this much fuss up when angelina jolie done it (twice) and she wants more to make a rainbow family.

At the end of the day its up to Madonna what she wants to do.

2006-11-19 04:29:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers