I agree, except not one person whose accusing Madonna of adopting solely because the child needs a home has been able to prove that this is her only motivation. Not one. No statements of fact, but plenty of “Oh, golly! But IF, IF, IF!” The evidence we DO have is that Madonna is an exemplary mother and a humanitarian. I have a strong suspicion that there is much more to some of these objections than meets the eye.
i confess, i don’t see why that’s a bad thing. I don’t see why it’s wrong, to look out on the world and release that you have enough room, and money and ‘stuff’, to take a child out of certain death or close enough to it and take them in and raise them as your own.
I don’t think that would make me a bad person, undeserving of the chance to do so, because I don’t ache for a child, because I don’t have hole in my soul, longing for a child.
I want to be a good human being, isn’t that enough?
And as I said, I don’t fault Madonna for that because I haven’t seen anything where she has said that. I have seen others here pull the charitable card, and that is offensive as well. If that is their logic on why this is a good thing, its faulty. If this is a good thing because Madonna will get a new child in her life to treasure, and the child will get a new family that can provide for him instead of institutional care, that’s good. People should be aware that this is an offensive statement to many adoptive parents - most people aren’t aware, and believing that most people would not do offensive things if they were aware, this is informational.
To me, my biggest objection has to do with the birthfather. There is something not right about this. International adoption is covered by the Hague Convention. He needs to willingly sign away all adoptive rights for the child to be legally (international law - as legal as international law gets) as an orphan (note, I’m not an attorney). It does not sound like he really understood what he did, if he did so. And if he did so, it sounds like he was “talked into it” by his own government. That’s really problematic, because it creates issues with other children that are in the adoption process. Countries get shut down overnight by the U.S. State Department when they believe there is “baby selling” or “coersion” involved - those visas are denied. That means that families with a lovely picture who are waiting for a visa approval to catch a plane suddenly go into limbo - sometimes for years - sometimes the child never comes home.
Celebrity adoptions are a little strange, and sometimes for good reason. And this one is taken place in the U.K. which makes it even stranger. But there are some red flags here for someone who has done an international adoption and has watched hundreds of them happen over the years (via adoption message boards).
That’s OK. I have to admit, I didn’t get exactly what your exact problem was with it. I don’t think I ever claimed to have proof that this is what she did, but the whole thing just seemed a little…I’m not sure of the word I’m looking for…maybe calculated? It’s a feeling I have, which I have to admit I still have to a certain degree, although I clearly have no evidence for it.
Not facts, no, but they are questions being raised, specifically because the facts are unclear. What I am hoping will come out eventually was that everything was on the up-and-up, but considering what the father has been saying, I’m afraid that it won’t.
No, it won’t be. You need to want to be a good parent. Want to be a good human being, go donate your time to a home for the elderly.
(Do people have children - biological children - because they ‘want to be a good person?’)
It won’t make you a bad person, but it won’t make you a sufficient parent. The child deserves better.
I meant your assumptions about what being “pro-life” means.
I also do not believe that a person has to be selfish to adopt, but as Dangerosa has expressed so much better than I have, it is considered inappropriate to adopt only for the reason of being altruistic or trying to “rescue” a child. I have already admitted that I don’t have evidence that this applies to Madonna in this instance. But her culpability in something unethical IS still in question, in my opinion. No one has shown any evidence to the contrary.
Then you clearly don’t understand anything about libertarianism, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with not caring what happens to people.
Personally, I wouldn’t say exemplary and just say seemingly competent, because I know nothing of her children’s home life. Competent, IMO, still puts her above the median.
I don’t think it’s bad either. How many people sponsor children or support charities because the kids need it? Thousands. The fact that someone cares about the kid is all that matters to the kid.
Being pro-life means that you think it’s better for a child to be born than not. It means that you do not believe a woman should have a choice not to give birth, no matter what her circumstances are or the circumstances would be of the child. It means, in a nutshell, that the child being born is more important than the quality of life the child will have.
You said:
It is considered inappropriate by you.
Of course! She should have to prove her innocence. It’s the American way.
Bullshit. I used to be a libertarian. I “cared” about what happened to people only to the extent that it didn’t touch my precious wallet, because see that would infringe on my freeeeeeedom.
Her friends use the word “exemplary” as I recall. We’re talking about people who know her and see her with her children.
I have stated on the SDMB more than once that I am not necessarily for outlawing abortion. So your assumptions about me, and what it means to be pro-life, are wrong.
Yes, by me. And by the adoption community, of which I am a part.
Since ethical & legal questions have been raised by people directly involved in the adoption, then I think she and whoever else was involved should have to answer to it, yes.
Well, if that’s the kind of libertarian you were, then I’m not surprised you are no longer one.
No, its considered inappropriate by social workers, psychologists who specialize in adoption, adoption professionals, agencies that service the adoption community. This is not something she is making up. This is considered, overwhelmingly, in the adoption community as “not a good idea” and “inappropriate.”
You have already stated that you are talking about what is “ideal” in the US.
You have also stated that it’s better to be adopted than to be stuck in an orphanage.
Pick one. If you want these kids left in an orphanage rather than adopted out in less than ideal situations, defend that. If, on the other hand, it’s better to have a less than ideal adoption than no adoption, what exactly is the problem?
If you think women should have a choice, you aren’t pro-life by an definition I’ve ever seen. If you use words in non-standard ways, don’t get snotty when your secret meaning is a mystery.
Right. You’re a pro-choice pro-lifer and a compassionate libertarian. You contain multitudes.
How about they end up in homes where the parents WANT them. There are waiting lists even for international adoptions.
You are assuming that “pro-life” ONLY has a political meaning. And I do not necessarily characterize myself as “pro-choice,” either. “Pro-life” is much more descriptive of my feelings about abortion, so that is the term I use.
As I said, I am not really pro-choice. I do not choose to fight abortion legalities, because I think it is pointless. I do not believe that abortion is right, however, which I think makes me more pro-life than it does pro-choice.
Also, I believe in helping people who need help. I am not convinced that the government is the best means to that end. If that is inconsistent with being libertarian, I am not aware of it.
So there are no children who don’t get adopted?
I must say, that makes no sense to me. I would agree with you if you were talking about a situation where there’s a good chance someone else will adopt, e.g. U.S. adoption.
But to say that someone like holmes who would be willing to give a child in an African orphanage a good, loving home should desist because they may not be in the optimal emotional state to provide the optimally nurturing environment strikes me as, well, insane. Whether the child deserves better than a well-meaning parent who may not be sufficiently passionate is irrelevant. No children deserve to grow up in an African orphanage because their parents both died of AIDS. No children deserve to die of malaria because their parents don’t have the dollar for medicine. Until we get to the point where the number of people willing to provide good homes comes even remotely close to the number of children living in abject poverty in state-run orphanages, it seems foolish to be so restrictive.
(This is independent of the specific case of Madonna, who I have no reason to believe isn’t pants-wettingly passionate about raising an adopted child.)
Perhaps. I would hope my friends would say the same about me. Fortunately, the likelihood of E! calling them for a comment on my parenting skills start at non-existent and go down from there.
You make it sound as if Madonna doesn’t want this child. What makes you say that?
There are millions of orphaned children in Africa and all over the world. I don’t see people lining up to adopt them.
Which brings me to my next point. The issues that are being addressed by Madonna and Brangelina are issues that didn’t exist 20 years ago. AIDS has changed those countries…and our entire world…with respect to adoption. The old rules don’t apply. You may think that the smells-so-good-traditional-style adoption is the way to go but there is no way the traditional way will accommodate the needs of so many kids. And the numbers are rising.
There is no reason to believe that Madonna is anything other than what she says she is. Her life is an open book for the most part. If she can use her love and wealth to make this kid’s life better, quit looking under the bed.