Madonna and her husband Guy Ritchie have left Malawi without the young boy that they have apparently adopted. It seems that it's official now though, as Madonna's spokeswoman confirmed the adoption (just days after she firmly denied it I might add).
Meanwhile, it's apparently not just me who thinks that having a human fashion accessory is wrong. A child rights organization isn't too happy with the speedy nature of the adoption. Boniface Mandere of Eye of the Child says that they're not against international adoption or Madonna herself helping a child. They are concerned however that the process has been shortened too much, as it normally takes 18 months or more for an international adoption. Madonna's adoption was filed on Tuesday and approved on Wednesday.
I don't think that the High Court has any information about how Madonna is when it comes to child-rearing."
"We are concerned that the High Court has taken a short cut and waived the law. We are registering our concern and will seek clarification from the court, after which we will decide what action to take."
When Madonna will take her new accessory home with her to show off is not known.
I have two adopted children and I wish it could of gone this quickly. These children are neglected and unloved and IF anyone thinks a child is a fashion accessory then they haven't had children. Leave her alone...she wants to give to this child what he would have never imagined having in a million years. Love and caring, in addition a multi million dollar women who worked very hard to get where she is today...BACK OFF!!!
Judging with such superficial knowledge of the situation isn't really intelligent. Anyone who already has children knows the work, commitment, and other effort involved in raising a child. Anyone with no children and capable of a little bit of observation and imagination can guess at the same thing.
The legal concern of the children's group in that country is a different matter entirely. It should not be used to bolster the dumb assertion above. And it will be worked out in court. Maybe it is the money and status involved that sped up the process. Maybe the money and status got it in front of a court more quickly than normal, and that court decided it was a worthy adoption. Getting a child without a family quickly into one that will nuture it is no sin or ethical problem.
There are millions and millions of "spare" children on the planet. Providing a family and home to any one of them is a beautiful act. While I'm not a large fan of Madonna's (and think her second to last hair style is gawdawful), I admire the heck out of her/husband's willingness to open their family and home.
And referring to a child as an accessory is stupid and mean. Even if you're trying to be clever.
And for anyone considering adoption -- our family includes two adopted grandchildren. It isn't so much that they are the lucky ones (people often tell us that). The rest of us are so fortunate -- they are dear and delightful and have added amazing dimension to our family.
You know, these guest sound awfully self rightous. I have two children and I agree it is wonderful that people are willing to adopt children who were not wanted by their biological parents, BUT... I have several friends who have adopted internationally and it has taken 18 months or longer. They were also required to live with the child in their native country for several weeks before they were allowed to bring them home. You can talk about how wonderful it is that Madonna has given this child a home, but it is a shame that she did not have to go through the same crap that "real people" have to. Once again, hollywood not having to abide by the same laws as everyone else.
Oh and by the way, I agree with Curlio. Hollywood has made it an accessory to have an adopted child on their arm. Who is raising these kids? Not their mommies, they are too busy with their careers.
If you can't be a good example, then be a horrible warning!
I will clarify that I think adopting a child is great. I can even go with international adoption as being ... acceptable. My personal feeling is that there are enough children in need in your own home country wherever that may be and that many people go outside of their home country simply because they don't want "baggage" that comes with a slightly older child who still desperately needs a home.
My biggest object is, as shellybean has said, that the process of adopting was just tossed out the window simply because Madonna is Madonna. I'm sure she's a good mother and all, but honestly she could be another Joan Crawford for all the Malawi Government knows.
I also think that adopting this child is mostly to bring attention to the suffering of the children in that country - a noble cause to be sure, but not one that you should "buy" yourself a child for. Because make no mistake about it, that child was purchased, perhaps not for the same purpose as the Africans where back in the 1800s, but bought still the same.
"Now you know why lions eat their young" Capt. Phil Harris
Page :
1
This topic is closed for Guest reactions, if you want to react on this article you will have to register
