That is a bizarre thing to say…I have no idea what it is supposed to mean. Based on my posts, I don’t think my parents have anything to do with this whatsoever.
and about damn time too I say!
So…the new mantra is “Selfish and Proud”, huh? There’s nothing wrong with wanting a baby AND acquiring the child because there’s a desperate need for relief. All adoptions are charity cases, whether you want to believe it or not. The kid would have to be a complete idiot to not realize that a person, in part, adopted them to make his or her life better.
If you keep wanting to miss the point, then go ahead, but I will try to make my point one more time. The point is to try to focus on the reasons for adopting that make the child feel good about himself and the relationship with you, and not the fact that, except by a extremely slim chance of fate, he would be back in the orphanage with the other kids. As DSeid points out, the idea is for a MUTUTAL benefit, and the child should never be made to feel that he is gaining more than the parent is.
My point in this thread was never to debate altruism. Madonna is lucky enough to be in a position to be very, very generous with people who are suffering, and the fact that she obviously is dedicated to helping is a wonderful thing. But I have concerns about adoption ethics, and the messages that are sent about adoption to the public.
I had an immediate emotional reacton to what she said about wanting to give a child a life that he might not otherwise have had. As DSeid said very well:
We both think that this sends the wrong message about the rewards of adoption, which are far more emotional than physical, and are reaped by all parties involved.
In addition, I that ethical concerns that have been raised are valid ones, and I am interested to hear how they are answered to. For one thing, there are questions about how the adoption was able to go through so quickly, which is an issue brought up by human rights groups. Were regulations circumvented? There are reasons for regulations, including time to be sure that the adoptive parents are sincere in their intentions, to be sure that any birth family that exists are not taken advantage of, and to be sure that any other potential adoptive families are not bumped down the list. It is not clear to me whether or not these regulations were worked around, but the fact that the birth father of this child is now saying that he did not realize it was a permanent adoption, and that he was misled into signing papers that he could not read definitely raises questions in my mind. I am also not clear (maybe someone else knows this) on whether or not there is any other extended family that the child might have a prior and ongoing relationship with, or whether he has an ongoing relationship with the birth father, which I think should be a factor considered before he is taken out of the country to live with the chance that he may never see them again.
So, yes, her actions and her words do raise concerns in my mind. I don’t believe they are unfounded concerns, and I think that the fact that now the child is incredibly priviliged from a monetary standpoint should not wipe away any of these concerns.
Sarahfeena, I don’t know about you but I’ve had enough banging my head against this wall. Apparently posters here have so much celebrity worship that they are unable to read what has actually been written by either of us, instead knee-jerkedly transitioning into defending their star against any “attack” be it real or imagined. I won’t waste any more electrons on them. There is ignorance and then there is willful ignorance. (“Adoption fairs” as a place that prospective parents “shop” for children? Not in this country or in the world of international adoption in general.) I understand your concerns and they are reasonable. Nuff said.
You’re woefully uninformed.
In other words, you admit you had no argument to begin with, so you’ll make some baseless accusations and insults and storm off in a huff.
I think I’m with you. I list legitimate concerns, including cites, and that post is ignored. Meanwhile, Kalhoun decides to continue to act confused about what an adoption fair is, and Walter Windchill claims YOU don’t have an argument, even though he has no refutation for anything we have said, other than that he thinks we are being mean to a celebrity for no apparent reason (even though we have given the reasons).
I didn’t miss the point, but apparently you did. How is what you said THIS TIME any different from what I’ve been saying all along? You have done nothing but ignore the facts and invent conversations she’s had with the kid. You have your neat-and-tidy catholic American view of what adoption should be and it has nothing to do with the global situation. How could he NOT know his mother rescued him? And how could you not know your parents rescued you? Your one-dimensional view of our changing world is unrealistic.
Yeah…that message about getting out there and doing something to alleviate other people’s suffering. Wouldn’t want that to happen. :rolleyes:
Your emotions are misguided. They are looking for a reason to shit on a good deed. You need to examine why you feel that wanting to give a child a better life is a bad thing.
What are you talking about? Where did she say the rewards are physical? Where did she say anything that even hints at anything other than wanting to do what your parents did, which is to adopt a child?
I hardly know where to being here. She already said she didn’t cut corners. She has temporary custody for 18 months while she is being evaluated. Have you, in you infinite global adoption wisdom, inspected the details of your adoption? Have you grilled your parents to make sure they didn’t do anything unsavory like try to make your life better? And yeah…whisking a kid away in a private jet…that smacks of total alienation from the birth father. She’ll never be able to arrange for them to see each other again. What…with only multimillions of dollars to work with. That selfish bitch. And she’s proven to be such a selfish bitch in the past. Doesn’t care about anything but herself. And her kids. And AIDS. And orphans. If she could just get outside her own experience for just a second.
I have the same concerns about your family. They adopted you for selfish reasons, and that is never good. I am suspicious that they only did it to pave a path to heaven. I don’t think these suspicions are unfounded. After all, it could happen! Their word isn’t good enough.
I was wondering the same thing. Now I could be wrong, but I doubt there’s even a line to cut in front of, let alone buy your way to the front of. My guess is that had Madonna been a wealthy Malawian, she could have backed a truck up to the orphanage and just loaded it up with orphans.
It’s difficult to refute unsubstantiated and vague assertions, but it’s easy to point out they are unsubstantiated and vague.
You can add me to the list.
I think its great the Madonna adopted. To phrase the act as charitible - whether she did it or others have - is offensive. If she didn’t imply it was charitible, good for her. Then the others who talk about this as a “good work” get blame. I think its great that her son will not grow up in crushing poverty or ill health. I think its a shame that his legal status as an orphan seems to have been unclear as of the time of the adoption - in violation of the Hague Convention on International Adoptions - and that his birthfather’s understanding of the situation seems to be more of a “foster” situation than an adoption. Its even more of a shame that his government appears to have put pressure on him to allow this.
There are things here to cheer about, and things here to disgust.
She can only adopt if she doesn’t think she will improve the child’s life?
Talk about your all-time great Catch-22s. “You can only adopt if you desperately want a baby whose life you can ruin!”
Yes, I’m most certainly exaggerating, but the idea that the only acceptable motive for adopting a child is that you waaaaant is way out there, especially since at least one person in this thread is pro-life–a position that leads to more children being without parents. Couple desires for more children to be born but fewer people to be worthy of adopting and it’s really repulsive.
First, I’m not sure she did. I don’t believe anyone has cited her saying anything to that effect. But even if she did, the reasons for adoption can be multiple. I certainly don’t see “charitable” as being less honorable than “purely selfish” because a selfish person wouldn’t have the best interests of the child at heart.
I am pro-life, yes, and I am very, very pro-adoption, as well. Nothing I have said has anything to do with anyone being “worthy” of adoption.
My attitude towards it has more to do with what is telegraphed to the child. Since Madonna has made public statements about it, the child is sure to hear about them some day. I think it’s wrong to make the child believe that he might have been nothing but a charity case. Talk about damaging to someone’s self-esteem!
Here’s your adoption fair cite: http://www.dcfs.state.nv.us/DCFS_Adoption.htm
I know what they are. Evidently you don’t. People shop for children. Plain and simple. You won’t find any cute little pink babies there, though. The parents that want those babies don’t go to adoption fairs.
Right! He’ll never feel acts of love from her or her family! All he’s going to know is that his mother adopted him from an impoverished country that needed help! Then she pops him into a secluded bunker and repeats that phrase over and over again: “You’re a charity case! You’re a charity case! Don’t let those random acts of affection fool you!”
Well, you have called Madonna’s ethics into question, have complained about her attitude, and have generally spat upon her actions. You’ve said that only certain motives are acceptable, no matter what the reality is for the child. Better to rot in an orphanage than to be adopted by someone whose motives aren’t sufficiently selfish?
Since you’re judging this woman, and finding her wanting, I’d say you very much are saying that she’s not worthy of adopting a child. She doesn’t meet your very narrow specs. So if you had your way, one more child wouldn’t be adopted. Perhaps more since you don’t like the way some countries allow people to choose which child to adopt. Fewer adoptions but more babies. Great plan.
So you think that children should just be placed with anyone, no matter what their ethics, no matter that the child’s birth family might have been coerced or otherwise tricked into agreeing with the adoption? OK, yes, then I guess I am pickier than you about who gets to adopt children.
Actually, there’s another way in which your hypocrisy is disgusting. If you’re pro-life, you care only about the kids being alive, not whether they are wanted or loved. So then one gets adopted and you’re suddenly going to care about whether they have self-esteem? Suddenly, you care if they are wanted and loved? What happened to it all being about “life”? This kid has a better chance to be alive in 15 years. Isn’t that all that matters? Or is it suddenly about quality of life?