Madonna the Babysnatcher

Mexicola

Just wondering what people thoughts are on this subject.

Basically Madonna has 'adopted' a child from Malawi. Problem is, what normally takes years to do under rigorous regulations, has somehow managed to fasttrack the entire process in 10 days.

I think its a f*cking disgrace that this woman can walk into Malawi, have a look at a few kids, decide from a selection list which one is the most 'beautiful' and head back to the UK 10 days later all sorted. It is quite obvious that somewhere along the line, someone has been bribed or whatever you call it, or the rules have been changed because she is a celebrity. This is a child's life we are talking about. The child in question isnt even an orphan, her father put young David in the orphanage due to poverty. Sure, this child will receive a good quality of life, education but will also be subjected to media intrusion and will be the spotlight because of his mothers status.

Another question. Is it trendy or something to adpot a baby of foreign origin. Whats wrong with an American or English child?

I also loved the coverage of the child coming into London. It wasn't even Madonna carrying the child. It was her PA, surrounded by a couple of police officers. Just goes to show that this child seems to be merely an object to her.

As far as I am aware there are several lawsuits begin filed against this action. I really hope that she either has to return young David to Malawi, or be put through the correct procedures. If you or I were to do the same, we'd be locked up.

F*cking celebrities :mad:

More on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6057676.stm

throwingmuses

Absolutely unbelievably well put. Absolute f*cking disgrace is right.

Hub

Who cares....

Anyway I think the fact that shes slightly wealthy and is adopting a child from the poorest place on the planet has an influence on what she can do...

Its not as if shes hurting anyone...

Hub

although I agree that there is some truth in her trying to look trendy

She is a tool...

Degsy

She'sa raddled,attention seeking old cnut.She's doinga bit of a bob geldof with the whole thing,ie her career is in the pits so she sets off to africa on a do-gooding meission like soem sort of moneyed messiah.I gaurantee that kid will be in trouble with the law before its 20th birthday!

xzanti

He's going to have a life that any child would kill* for... I doubt he'll resent her for taking him out of his mud hut to live in luxury tbh... IMHO

I say good luck to her, she's doing a good deed, who cares how she got him...

Running Bing

xzanti wrote:

He's going to have a life that any child would kill* for

What you mean material possessions? Who knows what sort of life she'll have? Media intrusion,spoiled rotten, mother and father missing for months on end, being raised by a nanny, growing up with three mothers(natural,adoptive,minder). Yeah sounds like a picninc. But she'll have a big bedroom, all the toys she wants and lobster for dinner so its okay. Dont assume just becuase Madonna is wealthy shes a good parent.

xzanti wrote:

I say good luck to her, she's doing a good deed

What taking a child away from her natural parents? How long before shes bored with the child and she moves on to her next attention seeking fad. Madonna has been one of the most popular performers for the past twenty odd years. Why is this? answer: becuase shes a media whore who would stoop to any level for a bit off attention.

Degsy

xzanti wrote:

He's going to have a life that any child would kill* for... I doubt he'll resent her for taking him out of his mud hut to live in luxury tbh... IMHO

I say good luck to her, she's doing a good deed, who cares how she got him...

Good deed my arse,why not adopt a poor english child..or better yet adopt ALL poor english children,she can certainly afford it.Bloody bob geldof/bono wannabe.

Lynfo

Babybing wrote:

What taking a child away from her natural parents? How long before shes bored with the child and she moves on to her next attention seeking fad. Madonna has been one of the most popular performers for the past twenty odd years. Why is this? answer: becuase shes a media seeking whore who would stoop to any level for a bit off attention.

Emmm, if you have a look at any paper/news report etc. you will see that the childs mother died during childbirth. The prospect of a good life for that boy in Malawi is not good. If you Google 'Malawi' the first few words you see are 'poor, hunger, please donate'

I somehow doubt that she's taking on a child simply for media attention, she simply got the attention because she is in fact Madonna.

I'm no fan of Madonna, but calling her a whore is a wee bit over the top don't you think?

xzanti

Babybing wrote:

What you mean material possessions? Who knows what sort of life she'll have? Media intrusion,spoiled rotten, mother and father missing for months on end, being raised by a nanny, growing up with three mothers(natural,adoptive,minder). Yeah sounds like a picninc. But she'll have a big bedroom, all the toys she wants and lobster for dinner so its okay. Dont assume just becuase Madonna is wealthy shes a good parent.



What taking a child away from her natural parents? How long before shes bored with the child and she moves on to her next attention seeking fad. Madonna has been one of the most popular performers for the past twenty odd years. Why is this? answer: becuase shes a media seeking whore who would stoop to any level for a bit off attention.

The childs natural parents obviously don't want him if he's in an orphanage, how could a life in a Malawi orphanage be a better option than living in a mansion in England, even if Madge herself isn't there I'm sure he'll be getting a better quality of care from her staff than he would have back there, I'm sorry but I just don't see the big deal...

Running Bing

Lynfo wrote:

I'm no fan of Madonna, but calling her a whore is a wee bit over the top don't you think?

Actually it is, the phrase I was trying to get across was "media whore" but I got a bit carried away. Editted accordingly. I still stand by my original comments though. Why not do something meaningul for malawai instead of picking one child at random who you like the look of and decide to take him home. Its a child not a dog ffs.

Budd

What gets me about this is the fact that she already has a full family unit with her own children and a husband.

I jsut find it a bit sickening the way she is using this child as her little vanity project. And I know it will all work out fine, she's happy, the child will be happy and so is its father.

xzanti

Budd wrote:

What gets me about this is the fact that she already has a full family unit with her own children and a husband.

I jsut find it a bit sickening the way she is using this child as her little vanity project. And I know it will all work out fine, she's happy, the child will be happy and so is its father.

So whats the problem??

humanji

Babybing wrote:

Dont assume just becuase Madonna is wealthy shes a good parent.

Actually, by all accounts, Madonna is supposedly a very good mother to her children, and does spend a lot of time with them.

Seriously though, why does anyone care? It's not Madonna desperate for attention, it's those bloody rags desperate to sell a few copies that I blame. Without them sensationalising everything, then nobody would know or care.

Mexicola

My issue is not the fact that Madonna might make a good mother. The fact is that she as a celebrity can bend the rules simply because of her wealth and status. Imagine how many people out there, desperate to adopt a child would love to be able to have a child in under two weeks. But no, the plebs, as usual, have to follow the letter of the law. And rightly so. A child is "not just for christmas". There was a quote in a paper today. "What Madonna wants, Madonna gets...". It seems that celebrities (and politicians) are above the law these days.

lady_marmalade

I must say that the whole thing left a bit of a nasty taste but only because a) she bypassed usual protocols and b) the child has a father (albeit one who hasn't the means to look after him himself).

In her defence however I will say that she's too old to adopt in Britain. She was on a charity mission in Malawi, and I think she's probably donating a lot of money there. So she wants another kid - why not?

Neither of us know her so it's not fair to comment on her parenting skills. And if you were in her position who's to say that you'd abide by all the usual protocols if you knew you had the power to speed it up a bit?

Ultimately, whatever you might think about Madonna, there's one less child in an orphanage now.

aidan_walsh

Basically Madonna has 'adopted' a child from Malawi. Problem is, what normally takes years to do under rigorous regulations, has somehow managed to fasttrack the entire process in 10 days.

Wrong. She has been awarded temporary custody of the child while the 18 month process goes ahead in the courts in Malawi.

I think its a f*cking disgrace that this woman can walk into Malawi, have a look at a few kids, decide from a selection list which one is the most 'beautiful'

Speculation that adds nothing but hyperbole to your argument.

and head back to the UK 10 days later all sorted.

Except that its not.

It is quite obvious that somewhere along the line, someone has been bribed or whatever you call it, or the rules have been changed because she is a celebrity.

Do boards members have a new definition of the word "obvious"? I have seen it bandied about in a number of threads lately by people who seem to be implying that they have background knowledge of what they are talking about, where as most likely they are just offering opinion. Opinion is not "obvious" in any respect.

Do you have proof that you can share that laws were broken? No? Shame...

Sure, this child will receive a good quality of life, education but will also be subjected to media intrusion and will be the spotlight because of his mothers status.

So would any other child that she chose to adopt, or that would have been born to her naturally. Anyhow, thats not necessarily true either. How long is the child really likely to be in the news? Now for a few days, again when the adoption process is finalised, unless anything comes up between this and then, sure. But after that, who can say with any certainty?

Is it trendy or something to adpot a baby of foreign origin. Whats wrong with an American or English child?

Why? Would it be more acceptable to you to "expose" an English or American child to "media intrusion"?

What gets me about this is the fact that she already has a full family unit with her own children and a husband.

So? Would you be complaining that she shouldn't have another child if she were to announce that she discovered she was pregnant because she already had a full family unit?

sonic juice

As long as she doesn't turn the child into a slave then I think the child will have a better life then back it it's birth place

Doctor J

Degsy wrote:

I gaurantee that kid will be in trouble with the law before its 20th birthday!

At least the kid now has a vastly better chance of living long enough to be 20, eh?

Are people seriously suggesting that existing (I won't say living because that implies some sort of quality of life) in a Malawi orphanage is better than being adopted by a celebrity with experience of motherhood? Really?

tbh

She could have spent the money on a solid gold toilet* but she didn't. If one child's life is better, whats the harm.

Having said that, I note from the papers that the child was accompanied on the flight from Cape Town by a bodyguard. He didn't need one last week. or maybe he did. I dunno.




*that's what I'd spend it on

Mexicola

aidan_walsh wrote:

Wrong. She has been awarded temporary custody of the child while the 18 month process goes ahead in the courts in Malawi.

The fact is she has the kid in her custody. Temporary or not, the child is in the UK and she has access to it.

aidan_walsh wrote:

Speculation that adds nothing but hyperbole to your argument.

What merits exactly do you suggest she chose the child on?

aidan_walsh wrote:

Except that its not.

Again, my point is, the child is in the UK after 10 days.

aidan_walsh wrote:

Do boards members have a new definition of the word "obvious"? I have seen it bandied about in a number of threads lately by people who seem to be implying that they have background knowledge of what they are talking about, where as most likely they are just offering opinion.

No. It is quite clear that any 'normal' couple would have to jump through hoops to get the response as Madonna did. Do you honestly believe her celebrity status had no influence whatsoever on this?

aidan_walsh wrote:

Do you have proof that you can share that laws were broken? No? Shame...

Where exactly did I say laws were broken? I said rules were changed.

aidan_walsh wrote:

So would any other child that she chose to adopt, or that would have been born to her naturally. Anyhow, thats not necessarily true either. How long is the child really likely to be in the news? Now for a few days, again when the adoption process is finalised, unless anything comes up between this and then, sure. But after that, who can say with any certainty?

I agree with your point here.

aidan_walsh wrote:

Why? Would it be more acceptable to you to "expose" an English or American child to "media intrusion"?

That question was not in context to media intrusion. I asked why there seems to be a trend with celebrities adopting children not of their own country. And before you jump down my throat on that one, I am not saying it is right or wrong. It is as if it makes them feel good about themselves to be adopting from a poor or disadvantaged country. There are plenty of kids in the UK/US who are equally entitled to be chosen.

Doctor J

Mexicola wrote:

It is as if it makes them feel good about themselves to be adopting from a poor or disadvantaged country. There are plenty of kids in the UK/US who are equally entitled to be chosen.

So what? If it make the child feel good about themself too then surely it's a good thing, regardless of the origins of the child. I don't remember such hoo-haa when the Irish were bringing in orphans from Romania and from around Chernobyl. Sure, I mean, there were plenty of Irish and English orphans too, why didn't they adopt them ones?

Mexicola

Doctor J wrote:

I don't remember such hoo-haa when the Irish were bringing in orphans from Romania and from around Chernobyl. Sure, I mean, there were plenty of Irish and English orphans too, why didn't they adopt them ones?

True. Although those people probably went through the correct adoption channels.

tbh

and if turns out that Madonna did too, you'll retract everything you've said, right? Right??!?

in summary:

Anti: Celebs thinking that the rules don't apply to them

Pro: A child who'd probably have had a ****ty life, having a good life and hopefully being able to help out his homeland.

Influencing factors: Madonna seems to be a pretty decent mam, from what I've read

conclusion: fair play madonna, and **** the begrudgers.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

She donated a couple of million dollars anyway as well as adopting the little bugger didn't she?

why does anyone care? who ever it is that takes the child out of that place, it's chances of a healthy long life have increased dramatically in the past week. I think she's a useless bitch in just about every facet of her life that I know of, but she's done far more for humanity than any of you. How many starving children have you taken into your home or how many millions have you donated to charities?

only people who have adopted children (either from impovrished countries or not) have a place commenting on this, and I saw on the news at least last night that quite a few of them are behind her. I think they'd know better than we would.

walshb

Just another ego tripper like Bob and Bono. They really have fooled a lot in this world. Well not me. What has Madonna ever did for anyone in say the US or Britain?. See Africa is a soft touch for these people on charity and mercy missions because they know it's so Un-Pc to speak out against those poor starving impoverished Africans. Same with all the charities who are over in Africa, they are all making a living off the poor and just on ego trips. I'm sure in the whole of Britain she could have found a kid or two to adopt if she really wanted to. Going thru the same stringent measures as anyone else. It's the poor African child I feel for who has been taken from his culture, his people and his natural environment to a world were every second of his life will now be monitored and scrutinised. He will never lead a normal life after this..:rolleyes:

tbh

walshb wrote:

Just another ego tripper like Bob and Bono. They really have fooled a lot in this world. Well not me. What has Madonna ever did for anyone in say the US or Britain?. See Africa is a soft touch for these people on charity and mercy missions because they know it's so Un-Pc to speak out against those poor starving impoverished Africans. Same with all the charities who are over in Africa, they are all making a living off the poor and just on ego trips. I'm sure in the whole of Britain she could have found a kid or two to adopt if she really wanted to. Going thru the same stringent measures as anyone else. It's the poor African child I feel for who has been taken from his culture, his people and his natural environment to a world were every second of his life will now be monitored and scrutinised. He will never lead a normal life after this..:rolleyes:

oh my god. just.....oh my god.

DaDa

Wow. Here are people spending a fair bit of energy ranting about how wrong and unfair it is that Madonna has custody (albeit temporary perhaps) of a child that had little chance, no choice.

Whatever her reasons and who are we to speculate what they are, this little boy gets a chance.

You whingers are happier to deny the child shelter, food & education.

marcsignal

surely with her money she could have paid for the education and welfare of every child in that african village for life, provided clean water by having a well constructed, and all that.
I wonder how often that child will actually see madonna while growing up ? she probably means well, but i can't help thinking she could have used her money to help the whole village instead of removing one child and bringing him to london, or the states,or wherever.
I wonder is she going to allow a british doctor give the child the once over ?
i understand she thinks british hospitals are 'out of the ark' didn't she have her own child in the states because she didn't consider british hospitals good enough ?

astrofool

As said, she could have also bought a solid gold toilet. She could also have done a million other things with the money, but she chose to adopt a child. Also, the reason that the whole thing went quickly would most likely be that she was rich, not a celebrity, I doubt many Malawians know who Madonna is, any non famous rich person probably could have done the same. Money makes the world go round

tbh

astrofool wrote:

As said, she could have also bought a solid gold toilet. She could also have done a million other things with the money, but she chose to adopt a child. Also, the reason that the whole thing went quickly would most likely be that she was rich, not a celebrity, I doubt many Malawians know who Madonna is, any non famous rich person probably could have done the same. Money makes the world go round

and as someone else has said, in a couple of weeks this will all have been forgotten about, and the child will still be safe and hopefully happy.