Madonna the Babysnatcher

kizzyr

tbh wrote:

That would be terrible, but it hasn't happened yet, or has it? You seem to be assuming that Jolie and Madonna will get bored, but there's nothing to say they won't be excellent parents. Lots of Celebs have adopted - tom cruise and nicole kidmans kids seem happy, ditto jodie fosters etc.

in fairness, i'd have a problem with that too, but there is nothing to suggest that any celebs havn't followed the same rules that everyone else has. You bashers all seem to assume that they have, simply because they are celebs.



ok, but that's hardly madonnas fault. And at least she is trying.

you've got a decent enough point there I suppose.[/QUOTE]

1) there are some celebs who have adopted and it hasn't been done in a blaze of media but Madonna brought a plane load of paps with her.........that hardly suggests that she wanted this kept on the QT doesn't it? Celeb past history does also show that whats "in" very quickly becomes "so last year". I do hope with children this won't happen only time will tell. However these kids could be left with an army of nannies as movies are filmed, gym classes attended to for 4 hours per day, songs recorded etc etc. These adoptions are being sold to us as "at least they'll have a stable happy loving family environment" If the same nanny stays forever yes otherwise there is a strong chance that maybe not will be the answer. Again only time will tell on that. Also every time one of the young Hollywood lot (who seem incapable of managing to either wear knickers or get out of a car without flashing their baby making material to the world) give an interivew they always but always add on about being desperate to adopt. Even Britney Spears (ok not the brightest spark) after she had her first kid spoke about wanting more but not liking being pregnant and certainly not giving birth (because it was more hard work than she thought it would be) so adoption was next on the cards for her. Thankfully she seems to have been blissfuly unaware of how you get pregnant and was having a second one of her own before the first one had settled into his cot.
2) There is no way Madonna and Angelina Jolie have had to wait 6 to 8 years for each of their adoptions to get through. Madonna's oldest is little more than 8 years old herself and there is nothing at all to suggest that Madonna was thinking of saving the poor babies of the world through adoption at this stage. Also 8 years ago Angelina Jolie hadn't been to Cambodia to film Tomb Raider and this is when she states her desire to help began and she's had Maddox for how many years now? Just because someone is rich and famous it does not make them a better parent than either you or me, yet we'd have to wait the full time, there is also the age rule (i.e. if you are over 45 I think, you are deemed too old and too great a death risk) goes against you then you are out, yet Madonna at 48 got through?
3) Not its not Madonna's fault or the fault of any of the other celebs, the rest of the world just needs to open its eyes for the right reasons.
4)Thank you:)

tbh

yes, fair enough, I get the point you are making. Having said that, tho, your argument is based around the assumption that madonna got around the laws of adoption that everyone else has to follow, and that the only reason she did what she did is soley for publicity.

I have to say that, as I understand it, she wanted to extend her family - fair enough, you've have to say, and decided to adopt for whatever reason. She's 45 or something, isn't she?. Good on her I say. She applied to the US adoption agencys, but then decided to adopt an african child instead. Again, good on her. The family didn't sell the baby to her, he was already in the orphanage. Now, ok, maybe she could have the family up to look after him, but thats not really the way orphanages work anywhere - I have to say, the effects of sudden wealth on the family may not be great.

so thats the story as I understand it, and based on that, I'm never going to agree with your argument UNLESS - and this is the key point - unless you or aoife can provide proof that she either got around the law, or only did it for publicity.

basically, I think she's innocent until proven guilty, and I'd like to know what reason you or aoife to deny her this right. Because if you don't have solid reasons, it just makes you look like you're slating her because she's famous. That's @Aoife more than you tho.

kizzyr

tbh wrote:

yes, fair enough, I get the point you are making. Having said that, tho, your argument is based around the assumption that madonna got around the laws of adoption that everyone else has to follow, and that the only reason she did what she did is soley for publicity.

I have to say that, as I understand it, she wanted to extend her family - fair enough, you've have to say, and decided to adopt for whatever reason. She's 45 or something, isn't she?. Good on her I say. She applied to the US adoption agencys, but then decided to adopt an african child instead. Again, good on her. The family didn't sell the baby to her, he was already in the orphanage. Now, ok, maybe she could have the family up to look after him, but thats not really the way orphanages work anywhere - I have to say, the effects of sudden wealth on the family may not be great.

so thats the story as I understand it, and based on that, I'm never going to agree with your argument UNLESS - and this is the key point - unless you or aoife can provide proof that she either got around the law, or only did it for publicity.

basically, I think she's innocent until proven guilty, and I'd like to know what reason you or aoife to deny her this right. Because if you don't have solid reasons, it just makes you look like you're slating her because she's famous. That's @Aoife more than you tho.

She's 48 and decided for years to put off having children. This is a gamble for women. Most of us put off having kids to get our careers to the point we want them to be at, to travel to far flung destinations that aren't really places you can take 2 year olds etc. This is a choice that we have to make because leave it too long and then find we either have difficulty in getting pregnant or can't. Madonna started her family when she was 40 and was lucky to have 2 healthy children. It was widely reported a year or so ago that she was visiting every herablist she could to ensure that she could get pregnant again. Obviously this didn't happen and so no because she wants more kids she gets to adopt one at the drop of a hat. No evidence, other than a letter posted by Madonna herself, has been produced to prove that the normal procedure was used to see that this adoption happened. If it was there you know full well it would have been produced to stop all of the controversy that has surrounded this.
I'm not down on this and other such adoptions only on the basis that these people are famous, its because they are rich and money obviously talks and I think thats wrong. I also think that pretty much everything Madonna does is for publicity and further her own needs and career. Given the stringent system of checks and balances that most people have to go through to be considered suitable for adoption I am amazed that Madonna and Guy Ritchie were considered suitable (that is if the correct procedure was followed). Other people are cast off the list if a teenage record of maybe smoking canabis just once is found, or a suspicion of shoplifting but this family whose history includes a soft porn book that was banned in many countries, a wardrobe of conical bras, violent film making, were considered suitable.
I'm not being a prude and to be honest all that Madonna has done in her pop career couldn't bother me less (different story for her terrible acting though:p ) and I enjoyed Snatch and Lock Stock as much as the next person but if they are being marked side by side with Joe and Josephine who are teachers and doctors then it will take a LOT to make me believe that the rules weren't bent.
At the end of the day though I do hope something good comes out of all of this and that these kids do have happy good lives and that eventually something is done to stop everyone seeing the continent of Africa as a victim but as a great place with great opportunities and the AIDS issue can be brought under some control, corrupt governments come to an end and it can be the place it should be.

tbh

kizzyr wrote:

Obviously this didn't happen and so no because she wants more kids she gets to adopt one at the drop of a hat.

ok - so this is the point of your argument in a nutshell. You believe it to be fact that madonna didn't have to go through the same checks as everyone else, and you're unhappy with that. I would be too, and I would agree with everything you've written. However, the reverse applys. I'm assuming if she went through the system like everyone else, and was awarded a child, you'd be ok with that?

because then the argument boils down to a provable fact - if madonna actually did go through the same system as everyone else, then none of what you have posted in this thread applys to her, agreed?

kizzyr

tbh wrote:

ok - so this is the point of your argument in a nutshell. You believe it to be fact that madonna didn't have to go through the same checks as everyone else, and you're unhappy with that. I would be too, and I would agree with everything you've written. However, the reverse applys. I'm assuming if she went through the system like everyone else, and was awarded a child, you'd be ok with that?

because then the argument boils down to a provable fact - if madonna actually did go through the same system as everyone else, then none of what you have posted in this thread applys to her, agreed?

Mostly agreed:D I do think celebrities and rich people should be subject to the same rules and regulations as the rest of us mere mortals when it comes to adopting yes. If they do and they are allowed adopt a chid then I don't have an argument with that itself no. I do however think that a greater good could be done to more people now and in the future if some of the financial "donations" given during the adoption were ploughed into a framework as I outlined earlier. I know this, like communisim is great in theory, and due to the corruption in governments, money intended for food, shelter, education etc often gets changed in AK47s, celebs could pay for the building of such things and have the staff needed to run them on their payrolls so making it impossible for officials to get their hands on this money. I honestly believe that this is a better way to go about things than a few children being selected and taken away.