Madonna wanted to adopt out of a orphanage why is that so bad?

Sorry, but your perception of orphanages is very different from the reality in 3rd world nations. With a high infant mortality rate, parents and grandparents often are forced to put children *temporarily* in orphanages to ensure they have food and medical care that otherwise they would not have, during ages 0 to 5 when mortality rates are highest. THEN the child is taken home again once they are past this vulnerable phase.

Temporary poverty can also lead to a temporary orphanage stay.

Do you want your child to die, or put them into an orphanage until you can get the necessary resources to keep them alive and fed at home???

It is NOT an "adoption center" or "foster care" as we have it here, as parental rights are not legally and completely severed as in Western forms of adoption. Very few orphans in Africa (or Haiti for that matter, as that's also a popular place to buy orphans from) are actually orphans. Very few have no family.

Temporary poverty (and poverty is a human rights abuse -- check article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right) is no reason to take a child away from a loving parent or grandparent. That is exploitation.

I have learned that Malawi does not adopt children to non-citizens, or non married people. She already bent the rules once when she adopted David, being that she was not a Malawi citizen. Now she is STILL not a citizen, and now she is a single parent. Why should she get to override those laws, but everyone else has to follow them? Because she has money? If she was so concerned, she would give money to support the kids in their own country. If she really wants to be a mom to another child, she should adopt from her own country, or a country that allows international adoption to non married women, and follow the same laws and rules as everyone else.

properly, in international places like uk and the States, the waiting checklist for adopting youthful babies are phenomonally long. i comprehend there are older babies searching for families yet people do no longer desire babies with bags that could desire to finally end up confusing.. so they pass to a minimum of one/3 international international places... in my view i don't have a subject with it... i do no longer see why everybody might have a subject with somebody of wealth, adopting a toddler that could probable ideally be suggested in poverty... As for assisting the country itself, there are loads of charities that do this, and we could face it, how lots of those charities supply the money they convey mutually over to deprave government officers as a substitute of giving it directly to the inhabitants... I join Amnesty international and that i comprehend each little thing I supplies them is going immediately on help... Others like the pink pass and the french scientific one, (won't be able to think of of the call) do an undesirable lot interior the third international...

The problem most people have with Madonna's adoption of Mercy is not that she was trying to adopt a child from an orphanage, but that she was trying to use her money and celebrity to circumvent the system.

Malawi has very strict adoption rules -- no one should get a free pass.

Mercy's father had thought she was dead but has since indicated that he wants to parent her and he has that right.

This is Africa, not a western country. Different laws for starters and that isn't a fostering situaiton, how do you know the little girl doesn't have more family members? Madonna wanted all the rules bent her way... She doesn't qualify to adopt a child from there. That really should have been the end of it, and its wrong to bribe a country with charity donations just to expect them to make exceptions for her to do as she pleases.

I'm personally not against it. I really don't care what she chooses to do. She can give that child more then she can have where she was but the authorities in the country chose to deny her request and thats it. I watched a segment on Larry King a few weeks ago as a podcast, I believe it is available on iTunes for free, and they had some pretty highly placed people in the adoption field in the US being interviewed and none of them were against it. Yes, there is a two year waiting period/residency requirement for adoptions from the country but as they pointed out that is to protect against unscrupulous adoptions and illegal trafficking, something that is not a risk in Madonna's case.

But, as has been pointed out. People are entitled to their own opinions and many will voice it if they wish.

ETA: Some here may say it's "kidnapping" but the fact of the matter is, Malawi is a sovereign country and if their courts choose to wave the residency requirements and allow her to adopt again that is their choice and it can't be called kidnapping or human trafficking or anything.

Because she is taking a child from her community. Madonna is serving her own wants, not the needs of the children. The child HAS family. She shouldn't be taken away from them. Just because the family is poor, it doesn't make them any less family to her.

Madonna has plenty in her life that I believe keeps her from being a fit parent. The fact that she is away so much is one thing that I find doesn't benefit the children. She has a stable of staff to care for the children, and she isn't doing the work herself. Money doesn't make a good home. She doesn't need any more children, and if she has concerns for children elsewhere, there is plenty she can do, other than stealing this child away from her family and culture.

ETA: I just see this as exploitive to the country and to its people. This child has a family, and while they may not be able to afford her right now, that may change. This "orphan" has ties to this country, and doesn't belong in Madonna's stable of children.

You don't even have to take the ethics into consideration. She simply doesn't meet the requirements. PAPs are supposed to reside in the country for at least 18 months, which she clearly hasn't done.

There are many reasons. Here are just a few:

She has only brought her son to visit his father once. She said prior to the adoption of David that she wanted to keep him in contact with his father, and make sure he knows his roots. LIE!

She's asking for special treatment. Last time, her money talked. This time, the judge is simply following the rules everyone else has to abide by. She shouldn't get special treatment because she has money.

The child she's trying to adopt has a family in her own country. So does her son. If she had helped out the families instead of buying their children, it would have cost her a whole lot less, and both children would be able to keep in contact with their own families. As noted above, Madonna severs the contact of the child from their natural family...even though she promises to do otherwise.

The amount of money she spent on David's adoption could have fed his whole village, probably for years (I don't know what income levels are like in Malawi, but I know it takes a whole lot less to feed a family there than it does here).

The charity that Madonna put in place in Malawi is defaulting. It appears that she only set it up so that she could get in good with the officials and nab a couple kids. Now that she got one, she's just ignoring the rest of the kids who are in dire need of assistance IN Malawi. Not very "altruistic" if you ask me.

She spanks her kids. Now, that may be seen by some as a parenting choice, but I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, spanking a defenseless child is abusive, physically and mentally. So how is that a "better life"?

And if, by "better life" you mean money, I strongly disagree with that. I would MUCH rather live with a dirt poor family who DOESN'T hit their children, than a filthy rich family who not only hits their children, but has a nanny do the majority of the raising of said children.

I would much rather see Madonna start putting her money back into the charity she started up in Malawi, and maybe kick in a few extra bucks to help some of those non-orphans go home to their own families, where they will be surrounded by people who look like them, act like them, speak the same language, will teach them about their own rich culture and heritage, and who can provide a genetic mirror. I wouldn't trade that for all the money in the world.

Thank you, you just said everyone I was thinking!