Madonna.

seaflower · Post by **seaflower** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:02 pm

I'd just like to know what people think think about madona and guy adopting a baby boy from malawi? i am not sure i agree with this. If their reason for choosing to adopt a baby (from one of the poorest countries in the world) is to save one human from a life of poverty then why does it have to be a foreign child? I'm sure there are children in this country that are orphaned needing a family and there are definatley lots of children enduring poverty.

They probably would have to wait a long time to adopt a baby in this country as there seems to be quite a wait from enquiring about adoption to being approved to actually having a child.

There are also lots of other ethical issues such as race, culture, extended family, he will be famous with famous parents. what do you guys think?

Post by **johnriley1uk** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:59 pm

I understand the points you raise, all valid questions, but don't feel we have enough detailed information about what they are doing and why to make a judgement.

Claire · Post by **Claire** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:48 pm

I actually think Madonna would be too old to adopt in this country. i was reading an article in The Observer about a woman who had adopted from Guatemale because - at 38 - she was too old; i think her partner was 44 or something.
i don't have any significant objections to the situation although i'm sure she won't have to go through the 18 month rigmarole or formalising the adoption - throw some money at the situation, see what that'll do.
it will be difficult for the child though as he will have to deal with the fame of his 'parents'. plus, how much of an absent mother must madonna be because of her career, or do Lourdes, Roco(?) and now David get ferried around the world?

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:03 pm

For me, there are too many pros and cons to any answer that you can given or any question that you can pose to fully decide what is right on this topic.

IMHO, if the kid grows up healthy and normal without any side-effects of 'fame', etc and has a good life because of Madonna then well done to her. Let's leave it be because it is going to be judged cruelly all its life by the media.

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:48 pm

sorry to add another question but would the pros and cons change if the boy's natural father was dead?

Lizzie · Post by **Lizzie** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:08 am

Any idiot can have a baby naturally regardless of how they intend to look after the baby and treat the child (see my previous post re the gibbon who took a small child to see a v violent certificate 18 film !!!) without any comment or need to justify there actions.

If it's ok for a women of 65 (I think) to conceive a child through IVF - why is it so wrong for Madonna to want to do something positive at a good 20 years younger ??

All in all I think it is a good thing that Madonna has done something positive with her wealth and fame. Not only has she provided a new life for a child who had nothing to hope for she has brought an important issue to the eyes of the world, good on her !!! :D

Post by **Mike** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:35 am

I don't really know why she decided to do this or why it was important to adopt particularly.

As a general question would it have been better from her to donate ?100k or something a year to building a kick ass orphanage in the county? An adopted baby is going to cost the superstar at least that per year probably more.

Superficially it seems quite an odd move, however, things are always more complicated that the first look would imply.

BarcelonAl · Post by **BarcelonAl** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:46 am

It's a tough subject to discuss because everything is all so cloak and dagger at the moment. Plus I'm also torn over the issue.

On one hand I think she's doing some good. The child is going to be better looked after by the family (and it's nannys etc.), than it ever would have in Africa. Plus Madonna is giving thousands of pounds to set up some form of charitable trust to help other under-privelleged or orphaned or something kids.

On the other hand, with approximately 4000 kids needing some form of fostering or adoption in this country, I also think that maybe charity should begin at home. If Madonna really was doing this to help the kid in life, why not provide money to his father and him to suceed and make the best of himself in his own country?

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:42 pm

Fez wrote:sorry to add another question but would the pros and cons change if the boy's natural father was dead?

isn't the boy's father dead?

Post by **Mike** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:54 pm

I don't think so. . . but don't quote me!

Chrissie · Post by **Chrissie** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:00 pm

The father is indeed alive, they interviewed him on BBC News the other night, he was shown outside his home with his brothers (David's uncles)

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:21 am

i don't think what madonna has done is a good thing. ripping a child not only from its extended family, which is the norm in his country, but taking him away from his own culture and country and forcing him to live in the media spotlight while growing up - which is inevitable no matter what they try and do to protect him - is hardly going to be good for him.

improving the lot for africa's orphanages would have helped hundreds more, instead she has raised the issue of suspicious adoption practices and done nothing to highlight the massive number of abandoned children in need of help. how the hell can turning orphans into a celebrity fashion accessory be good for anyone?!?

Lizzie · Post by **Lizzie** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:05 am

Yes, because living on the breadline in poorly funded, understaffed orphanage would be so much better than having all the opportunities and luxuries money can buy !!!

I've seen pictures of these orphanages at Church - and believe you me, given the choice I'd rather live at Madonna's thank you very much !! Especially given that this poor child has been abandoned by his own father- maybe that's where the blame should lie, not with Madonna !!

Madonna may not have gone about it in the right way but at least she's doing something other than frittering her wealth away up her nose like most celebrities !!

Oh, and I think, but don't quote me, that Madonna has set up some sort of charitable trust for orphanages so in fact she has done as much as she probably can.

Plus - we don't know the personal reasons behind this decision. Maybe she can't have any more children and her only option is adoption - you can't deny her this !!

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:24 pm

Regarding the father, the BBC had an article: essentially, the mother died, and he couldn't afford to raise the child, so he had to give him to the prphanage to care for. He realises how bad the orphanages are, but assuming his story is true, it was either that or death. He's pretty happy about the adoption. I also believe there's an 18 month monitoring period before the adoption is official.

To be honest, anyone with over a million in the bank could probably do a lot more for charity. Like give the damn stuff away to orphanages. I don't think anyone's going to argue that you "just can't live" off only a million.

I would be worried about the culture shock, but the kid's only one. Media attention is another thing, and I don't know if Madonna is one of the more grounded celebrities or not. I just hope the kid grows up to appreciate what he's got.

Post by **Mike** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:29 am

Have you all heard the latest? Aparently the father has come back saying he wants his child back. . . . weird since the other week he was all okay about the adoption! :D