Yep, make 'em work hard for no money == Bad!
Give them food, toys, a great life and a chance at fame and fortune == Not as bad.
DSeid, even if she had gone to the US to film Oprah, there are still two people in their marriage. Guy Ritchie might be a hack, but I’m sure he’s well able to look after his children.
I thought the boy’s father was in his life? Did he put his son up for adoption?
The story has changed a couple of times, but basically, people who can’t care for their children put them in an orphanage until they can care for them again. Much like foster situations here in the U.S. The first story said the father was glad Madonna was taking him, but later he changed the story and said he only wanted her to raise and educate him and then he would be returned. No relinquishing of parental rights or anything.
That’s what I was wondering too. I didn’t think he was in an orphanage. Oh, here.
LONDON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - The father of the Malawian child pop star Madonna wants to adopt said on Sunday he had not originally planned to give up his son for good when he handed him to an orphanage after the death of his wife last year.
Yohane Banda told a British newspaper he put his son David in an orphanage when he was just over one month old, fearing that he was ill with malaria, which killed his two other sons.
“I suppose deep in my heart I always imagined that when he was better, or I had got another wife, I would go and take him back,” Banda told the Mail on Sunday. “I did not think anyone would want to take him away.”
But Banda, 31, said he and his family had agreed to allow Madonna and her husband Guy Ritchie to adopt the child, believing it would give him the chance to receive a good education and grow up healthy.
“He will always be in my heart. I hate to see him leave Malawi but I have come to accept the loss,” Banda said. “The government people told me it would be a good thing for the country. He will come back educated and able to help us.”
You’re an idiot. I notice that you, too, didn’t bother to read the linked article, let alone look for facts before developing your distaste. Do you have a fucking clue about the charitable works Madonna has been doing since the '80s, particularly involving AIDS prevention and awareness? Do you know anything about the massive AIDS crisis in Malawi? Is it really so inconsequential to you that she’s not only funding the building of the Raising Malawi Center, but investing $3MILLION in funding 6 already existing orphanages where there are more than a million children wallowing without parents, 30% of whom are infected with HIV? It’s estimated that somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 children a day become orphaned due to AIDS in Malawi. Should she adopt all of them to satisfy you?
I’m sorry, I take it back; you’re not an idiot. You’re a fucking idiot.
Argh! I was so pissed I forgot to correct that before hitting submit. That should read 70,000 children a year.
Actually, no, I can’t.
Mostly I just hate celebrities–ALL celebrities–and Madonna is the king daddy (queen mommy?) of them all. Of course people are going to rip into her. She’s a total phony. I just hope that for David’s sake she’s not going to be a phony mom.
There also seems to be some issue about the government strong-arming the birth father into giving his child up. Even if the child will have a “better life” with Madonna that doesn’t mean he should be taken away from a parent who wants and loves him. It is sad that the father feels he has to give his child away because there is no hope of a future in Malawi. Why couldn’t Madonna arrange for David’s family to move to England and share joint custody with them? She could certainly afford it.
But I hope everything works out okay for that kid, it’s not going to be easy living with one of the biggest celebrities in the world.
That’s a man who loves his son, but I think the government is assuming WAY too much. What makes them think the boy would come back?
You’re wrong. She does more to help poor or sick people in ten minutes than you’ll ever think about in your entire life. Whatever the government did or didn’t do has nothing to do with her intentions of giving that kid a loving family and a better life.
Her charity work is great. More should do the same. What does that have to do with this one little boy? All I am saying is that the entire thing seems very odd to me, that after all this time…since the '80s apparently…that she has been doing all this good work, all of a sudden, she thinks it’s a good idea to adopt one of these children? You don’t think there is ANY possibility that she is doing it for publicity purposes? None at all?
She doesn’t have to do anything to satisfy me…she could adopt a whole orphanage full of children or none at all. It doesn’t matter to me…I just sincerely hope that she is doing it for the right reasons.
Oooookay.
I think adoptions, whether it is a celebrity or a regular person who wants to do good in the world, is a good thing. However, I also don’t think adoptions are right for everyone. There are issues of cultural identity and family history to consider before plunging into adoptive parenthood. I don’t know whether Madonna and her family have sat down, considered this, and decided that adopting a boy from Africa was the right thing to do, but I sure hope so.
From the article:
I don’t know if it’s just the way I read it, or if a lot of adoption processes are like this, but she makes it seem like it would have been the same if she went down to the pound, picked out a dog in need of a good home, filled out the paperwork and applications, and went home hoping she gets the dog, but if she didn’t, no big deal, she’ll just look at another pound down the street. It gives me the creeps that children would be showcased like that, but then again, worse things have happened, must worse things.
My personal issue with Madonna’s adoption is with the fact that Malawi does not allow people from another country to come in, pick an orphan, and leave with him/her. Note: I read this tidbit in my local newspaper, which is known for getting their information wrong from time to time, so this is actually a point I’m weary of bringing up. But nonetheless, if it’s true that Malawi does not allow adoptions outside of the country, and the government granted Madonna and her family special permission, then yeah, it ticks me off that her celebrity status gets her special priviledges. I also have issue with her not following the 18 month sponsor procedure. Celebrity or not, I think regulations should be followed. If getting the child required a 18 month sponsorship, then Madonna should have either followed that, or looked to adopt elsewhere. Don’t like the way the government regulates it? Lobby for change through the UN.
Of course, this is all idealistic talk coming from me. Celebrities have always had special status; they’ve always used their special status to their advantage, and some even use it to promote charity organizations, or other charity needs. I think the procedures Madonna took was deplorable, she basically used her celebrity status to get what she wanted, to circumvent any inconveniences in her hectic life. She wanted to adopt a child from Malawi, and god damn it, she’s Madonna, so she got what she wanted. The act of adoption is noble on her part, there is no doubt the child will get what he would never have had he stayed in Malawi. Just because I find Madonna’s actions to adopt in bad taste does not mean I think the child should be sent back to the orphanage. Sometimes, it’s just in our nature to complain about how celebrities make things seem so unfair.
Based on the evidence, I’d say no…there is no chance in hell that she’s doing this for publicity purposes. In fact, she came out and dissed the media for all the bullshit they’ve been spewing. Why don’t you tell us what evidence you have that she doesn’t want to do exactly the same thing your parents wanted to do when they adopted you.
You don’t think there is ANY possibility that in all the time she has spent there working with the orphans that she, gee, I dunno, could’ve fallen in love with this particular child? Does there have to be a reason to choose a particular time to decide to take on the responsibility of raising another child at all, let alone a nefarious or self-serving reason? If you’re really all that concerned, follow the link I provided above and make a donation of your own. Then maybe you’ll have a teeeeeeny bit of leeway in calling someone else’s charitable works into question.
You don’t think it’s fair IF they make some concessions for someone that’s done so much to help alleviate the suffering of so many people? It’s not like she opened a titty bar…she’s building orphanages and giving them money. Malawi is in serious trouble and she’s doing everything she can…not just throwing money and lip service at the problem…to make a difference.
I find your post to be in bad taste.
Of course she dissed the media…who wouldn’t, if they are saying something bad about you?
The reason I suspect that she did not have the same intentions as my parents is that what she did is NOTHING like what my parents did when they adopted me. My parents applied for adoption, went through an approval process, and eventually were given a baby. They took the one they were given. They didn’t shop around for the one that suited them. They didn’t buck the system (why was she SO anxious to get that kid home SO fast)?
Mind you, I am not saying that she is absolutely not sincere. I just have my doubts and suspicions.
You know, black is the new Chinese.
As I said, it’s just my impression. It’s an opinion, based on what I have read. Sure, maybe she is sincere, and I hope she is, for that boy’s sake. The whole thing just seems a little too calculated to me.
And you know what? I thought it was kind of funny that you called me a fucking idiot over my opinions of a rather obnoxious celebrity. But I really think you have NO call whatsoever to tell me who I should donate to, or question my own charitable works. You don’t have any idea what I do or don’t do for ANY disadvantaged group. Make a donation yourself if it it will make you feel that you are as good of a person as you apparently think Madonna is.
I don’t think any of us REALLY knows what is going on. We get all our information from the media with regards to this situation, and from the information that I’ve read in my local paper (complete crap sometimes) to more reliable information online, I have come to the opinion, that no, even if she’s has done a lot to help the country and the orphans, that she should not be granted special treatment. I donate quite a bit of money to my local SPCA, as much as I can afford, and I volunteer whenever I have a weekend free, but when the time is right for me to adopt a dog, I definitely don’t expect them to circumvent the normal procedures and let me take a dog home without evaluating my circumstances, and the reason I want to take on responsibilty for a life.
Of course, you may have read different pieces on this situation than I have, and come to your conclusion that Madonna does indeed deserve special treatment. So be it.
Your parents didn’t have a choice. She fell in love with one and was told she might not be able to take him. So what? Does that mean your parents are somehow BETTER than her?
You don’t think that the fact that she’s world famous has any bearing on her wanting to keep the accompanying static to a minimum with regard to the baby? Of course she got out of there as quickly as she could. That’s how she operates all the time to protect her privacy.
The fact that her adoption was different (and better) than your parents doesn’t make her a bad person. Your parents would have cut corners (and shopped around, most likely) if they had the opportunity. The constricts of the American system doesn’t make them more suitable for adoption.