An opinion, that is.
Like the rest of the world, I've been following the Mad*nna adoption frenzy, one I do believe was created and perpetuated by the media.
Here's Sharon Osb*urne in The Sun:
“Please give me a break, it is like getting a Louis Vuitton handbag.It is a crock of s**t. If she wants to help the kid she should have got the father a little trade going, a fruit stand or something like that and built him a mud hut.If the kid is sick then get him a doctor, what was the father supposed to do, he can’t read or write.She should have left him in his own culture, that is what I say.Madonna should have given the money to an orphanage, got them a 24-hour paramedic.She bought a baby for God’s sake.”
I will readily admit that I am not exactly a Mad*nna fan, although I will reservedly admit to dressing Susan-ish in the mid-80's.
Seems that the biological dad says he was goaded to rant a few days ago and he's come back around. He feels that this baby, David, would be dead like his other children if not for Mad*nna, a wealthy person who contributed significantly to the orphanage that housed David.
According to another article I read yesterday, it seems that the laws, particularly in Africa, are quasi and subject to change, so while it appeared to some organizations that Mad*nna may have broken laws, she was following the laws of a region where she found no abiding laws.
I think Sharon Osb*urne is quite off base. She is saying the wealthy should not adopt, but then again many of the non-wealthy adopting are accused of Buy Buy Baby, too. It is absurd for Sharon to think that Mad*nna could throw money at a third world country and suddenly invent an infrastructure capable of suddenly blossoming an weak economy. Or that it could be in place to save a baby sick right then with pneumonia.
Even Mad*nna ain't all that.
Read this transcript for an agency view of international adoption. This adoption professional helped Angie in Ethiopia last year.
Look to Angie and Brad again for the next frenzy. They want a child from India by Xmas.The closest I've heard to a squabble out of them, they can't agree boy or girl. If my count is right, it'll put them with three under the age of two.
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
7 comments:
I didn't watch the Oprah interview but I did see a snippet on one of the entertainment shows. Although I find it a bit disconcerting that there is a father in the picture (i.e. the child is not an orphan), I believe she did what she could for the area then picked a child she wanted to give a good life to. I can't really fault her for that. She took home a child, people! To raise, for the rest of his life. She didn't just talk about saving a child, she did it. She quoted the father as saying if she (Madonna) didn't take the child from the village, he (the father) would have buried him, along with all of his other children.
Is Sharon serious? A fruit stand? A mud hut? Give me a break. What a nut case, which would explain her offspring. Well, that and having Ozzy for a dad.
Now that I've read more, it seems that a bunch of folks are questioning Sharon. Suits me. Others figure it's an attention thing. Maybe Mad*nna's plastic surgeons have done a better job and she's jealous?
well-heeled mom, thanks for reading. Nice to have a new commenter. And one shoed so stylishly, too.
I think Madonna got a bad rap - Sharon is a nut.
I was quite impressed that Madonna went on record to say they wanted another child, it wasn't working naturally so they looked to adoption. Why the media got involved (to the extent they did) is beyond me - she's certainly not doing anything others haven't done in the past.
After seeing her on Oprah, I became much more sympathetic to Madonna's drama.
She said that the father had never visited the baby and they actually had a difficult time locating the father and they really didn't have to seek him out legally because he had abandoned the child.
The media makes it sound like he was involved in some way and the fact is, he had no contact whatsoever with the child.
If I were Madonna, I would wish I'd never spent so much time and energy trying to track down the deadbeat dad - it doesn't matter how poor you are, concern doesn't cost money and he didn't ever make an effort to inquire about the baby. Why is the media more compassionate for his plight than the babies?
I do think that a lot of claptrap has been written about this adoption. Sharon O's comments are just one other thing. A mud hut? Give me a break - horribly uninformed. However, I do also think that Madonna hasn't handled much of this well, either.
No child should grow up in an orphanage. They seldom get the love and the physical touching that they need to thrive. Yes, it would be great if every unwanted baby in China or Romania or wherever could find a good home within their own culture. But if their own society leaves them to wither away in an orphanage, then strictly from a human standpoint, the kid's better off joining a family in a different country. Being in sync with one's culture is so much less important than being able to thrive and develop as a human being.
I read a letter to the editor in the NYT yesterday in which a guy from an orphanage-associated group said kids are best off staying in a well-run orphanage near their relatives. Baloney! The occasional visit from relatives is no substitute for actual daily family life.
Post a Comment