I think Madonna is wrong for wanting to adopt this child on a whim, the child has a father and brothers I believe? then why didn't she help the whole family so they could stay together?

 

Now THAT is a very, very pertinent question, and one which I feel Madge should address....

 

She coould make a reality show on MTV for starving kids who want to have a superstar mother?

 

Shhh, dont give Simon Cowell or Max Clifford any ideas..... :lol:

 

Doesn't sit easily with me either. I sponsor a child in Africa and it is helping his community. I think it is helping to provide them with education facilities according to the lad himself. He has sent me updates on how things are progressing.

 

There will come a time when he may want to go back to his real family.

 

I agree with suggy up there ^, she should have helped the family as a whole to stay together.

I'm gonna keep this short, because theres not an awful lot I can say that hasn't already been said

 

but

 

at the end of the day ...

 

- it's not our place to suggest madonna will not be an excellent mother to the adopted child, as so far it appears to me that she's been excellent with rocco and lourdes so far

 

- there is NO evidence to suggest that just because it's a celebs kid it will be screwed up ... there's no evidence to suggest that a celebs kid is any more likely to become a crack addict than someone who lives next door to you, it's total conjecture

 

- it's not our place to question her motives for this adoption. i do agree that some of it IS a PR ... but if she's helping save a life, does it matter?

 

- we're always being told on comic relief / children in need, that anything we do helps ... so isn't it better she helps one child rather than sitting at home surrounded by her richers doing nothing at all. at the end of the day, whatever the motives, she's saving a life ... that's good enough for me ... poverty is the WORLDS problem, not madonnas, it's not all up to her to solve it. she *could*, and probably *should* do more ... but it's not the right of any of ours to say she should save a whole community, it's ridiculous.

 

if you're all right and it does become a "trend" ... to me that means a lot of kids will be saved. and, if that's the case, it can only be good. i see no reason why any child adopted by a celeb should grow up to be a "screw up", or not have a completely full life.

 

edit: i admit i was NOT aware the child had a father and brothers, and this does give me a concern, and i DO agree she should help families rather than this one child ... but, i'd rather she helped someone, rather than no-one at all

Edited October 18, 200618 yr by Andrewy

I havn't read much in the papers about madonna, tbh I dont want to read it.

 

Good thing:

She is saving a child from death

 

Bad thing:

why couldnt she save the whole family, she has enouth money in the bank to adopt the whole village

I have to say I agree with you Scott. I personally see this as Madonna invovled in another tacky publicity stunt trying to make herself out to be some kind of hero. I think it's appalling that she can just pluck this child like a kid picks sweets from a shop and virtually not have an ounce of hassle in the adoption process that every other normal couple who doesn't flash the cash around does.

 

I agree with what most people have already said tbh - these people are rolling in it - why don't they pull their fingers out and use it to save whole communities not just one frickin person?

from the Oprah show....

 

Pop queen Madonna has defended her decision to adopt a young boy from Malawi in an emotional interview broadcast on US television. She told chat show host Oprah Winfrey she was surprised at the criticism she has received and at some of the claims made by David Banda's father.

 

Yohane Banda, 32, a peasant farmer, told Time magazine he did not realise he was giving up his son for good.

 

Madonna responded: "I sat in that room, I looked into that man's eyes. I believe the press is manipulating

this information out of him.

 

"I believe at this point in time, he's been terrorised by the media. They have spun a story that is completely false."

 

The 48 year old said she could not understand why she was being criticised for wanting to do good and she hoped her experience would not deter others.

 

Madonna denied bypassing Malawi law and effectively buying 13-month-old David by offering £1.1m to help orphans in the impoverished African country.

 

"It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you have, nothing goes fast in Africa," she said.

 

She added: "There are no adoption laws in Malawi. And I was warned they were more or less going to have to make them up as we went along."

 

Madonna revealed David was very sick when she first first came into contact with him:

 

"He had severe pneumonia, and he could hardly breathe. He's still a little bit ill, but he's much better than he was when we found him."

 

The superstar also revealed she wants David to become a spokesman for his native country one day.

 

The adoption saga took a new twist when David's father claimed he only agreed Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie would only be given temporary care of the boy.

 

But Mr Banda said he would not fight the adoption because his son would have a better life with the star.

 

Later this week, a coalition of human rights groups will ask a judge in Malawi to review the case, claiming the country's laws prevent international adoption, even by celebrities.

Edited October 25, 200618 yr by russt68

Good on Madonna

 

Yes this will probably help her record sales but this will also help raise awareness of the plight of kids in Africa which will lead to further lives being saved not to mention her donation

 

I would much rather see a positive action like this than some Live8 gig where pampered "stars" pretended to care about starving kids while backstage guzzling £250 bottles of wine and eating the type of luxury foods starving kids in Africa will never see or Bono pontificating about starving kids

 

Those that are complaining about her should do something practical and adopt an African themselves

 

Full credit to her

Edited October 25, 200618 yr by Kimi Räikkönen

1 or 10 million for Madonna is nothing... This is nothing. She isn´t doing anything exceptional at all taking a small tiny fraction of her giant possessions. Why does she want to adopt a kid who HAS parents, when there are so many who don´t have one? Is it because she wants the CUTE one, rather then an ugly starving motherless african baby?

1 or 10 million for Madonna is nothing... This is nothing. She isn´t doing anything exceptional at all taking a small tiny fraction of her giant possessions. Why does she want to adopt a kid who HAS parents, when there are so many who don´t have one? Is it because she wants the CUTE one, rather then an ugly starving motherless african baby?

 

She is raising public awareness in the matter which generates publicity for starving Africans and probably inspires others to adopt, I know she lives on a big estate but it is asking a bit much for her to bring dozens of starving kids to this country

 

£1m regardless of what fraction of her income it is will save a LOT of lives and thats all that matters really

 

Out of her fortune she has donated 1m ok thats probably 1% of her wealth but who else on here has given 1% of their wealth or more towards starving Africans ??? no one I bet

She is raising public awareness in the matter which generates publicity for starving Africans and probably inspires others to adopt, I know she lives on a big estate but it is asking a bit much for her to bring dozens of starving kids to this country

 

£1m regardless of what fraction of her income it is will save a LOT of lives and thats all that matters really

 

Out of her fortune she has donated 1m ok thats probably 1% of her wealth but who else on here has given 1% of their wealth or more towards starving Africans ??? no one I bet

 

 

i think if she really wants to help these kids then she should help a community and give them money for water/food/education

 

that way shes helping a lot more kids

it's so bizzare ... nearly everyone here is calling this a cheap publicity stunt for helping one kid ... and then in the next breath claim she should be helping a whole community

 

if this is the reaction for saving one child, could you imagine the "stunt" comments if she saved a whole community (like people suggest she should) ... i doubt we'd suddenly all be "Saint Madonna" if she saved 100 people, instead people would just claim it's an even bigger publicity stunt

 

she wouldn't be able to do anything right.

 

it's so bizzare ... nearly everyone here is calling this a cheap publicity stunt for helping one kid ... and then in the next breath claim she should be helping a whole community

 

if this is the reaction for saving one child, could you imagine the "stunt" comments if she saved a whole community (like people suggest she should) ... i doubt we'd suddenly all be "Saint Madonna" if she saved 100 people, instead people would just claim it's an even bigger publicity stunt

 

she wouldn't be able to do anything right.

 

i dont think its a publicity stunt, i just think she shoulda helped more kids instead of just one.

she made the wrong choice imo

i dont think its a publicity stunt, i just think she shoulda helped more kids instead of just one.

she made the wrong choice imo

 

She has donated 1m though Laura which will help hundreds of kids in the community who are starving

The fact is, knowing Madonna´s past, you can´t help thinking she does everything for more fame and promo. Maybe we´re expecting too much from her, not one person alone can save the world. But if she wanted to raise awareness she could do it much more using her lyrics, videos, her public image, etc, instead of just taking away 1 kid who has family, and bring it to America (or wherever she lives) to have a celebrity life. She could do it like U2, but they never adopted a kid (at least, if they did there was never such publicity around it).

The fact is, knowing Madonna´s past, you can´t help thinking she does everything for more fame and promo. Maybe we´re expecting too much from her, not one person alone can save the world. But if she wanted to raise awareness she could do it much more using her lyrics, videos, her public image, etc, instead of just taking away 1 kid who has family, and bring it to America (or wherever she lives) to have a celebrity life. She could do it like U2, but they never adopted a kid (at least, if they did there was never such publicity around it).

 

Even if she does do it for fame and promo the community that kid lives in is going to be better off to the tune of 1m which is 1m more and more lives saved than would happen if she hadn't done it whatever her motives are in the matter, lives will be saved in that community and that is what is of the #1 importance to me in the matter

its good that shes given 1m then

 

but i still dont agree with her adopting the kid

 

yes it will benifit physically.....health/education.....but that kid is goin have the papparazi in his face whenever he steps out the door, he'll never have a private life

 

like i said the first time i heard she adopted this kid..........these african kids are becoming the new itsy bitsy doggies

Yeah but what sort of life would the kid have in Africa ? starvation, disease, an early death (average life expectancy is 20), a few cameras in the face and living till 80 is preferable for him than dying of typhoid or cholera or starvation while he in his teens :)

Even if she does do it for fame and promo the community that kid lives in is going to be better off to the tune of 1m which is 1m more and more lives saved than would happen if she hadn't done it whatever her motives are in the matter, lives will be saved in that community and that is what is of the #1 importance to me in the matter

 

I cant believe you're falling for this snake oil to be honest. If she was so bleedin' altruistic, why is her 'donation' coming with a huge precondition (ie, that kids be taught a curriculum that revolves around her pet religion Kabballa...), why is she not actually LIVING in the country itself for 18 months as is the actual legal requirement upon foreigners wishing to adopt Malawians, why is she taking a kid who actually HAS a family as opposed to an AIDS orphan who has no family at all...?

 

As for her appearance on Oprah, yet another cheap publicity stunt, hardly a bloody tough crowd to play to is it....? And Oprah is hardly Paxman or Dimblebey....

 

The facts are, if she DID actually care, she would be saving a whole community and using her vast fortune to help these families STAY TOGETHER, not whisk one kid off to a life of alienation in a foreign land with the attention of the Paparazzi every five minutes....

 

Maybe she thinks she's doing the right thing, but as someone once said, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".... And frankly this just brings up very unpleasant echoes of the days when these Victorian Colonialist bints would go into African villages and whisk a black child off to raise pretty much as a 'pet' or a curiosity to show off to their upper-crust, bourgeois friends....

 

The Hollywood types and Madonna situations aside, I don't think the act of adopting a foreign child in general bears any comparison to colonial-era racism. I've met several people over the years who've adopted impovershed, orphaned, sick children from Thailand, Russia, and Haiti. I don't think it's racist to say that a child will have better access to healthcare and education in London than a destitute Malawian village.

 

But the topic on hand is the Madonna adoption and that is suspicious because it seems like such a trendy thing to do these days...