2008 Woodie Awards
Madonna's adoption: Celebrity perk
By: Deena Watts
Issue date: 10/26/06 Section: Opinion/Editorial
- Page 1 of 1
To begin, let me explain my attitude toward adoption. I am all for giving children warm, loving, emotionally-stable places to grow up and prosper. I do not believe a child should ever have to experience poverty, despair, neglect, abuse or any of the other injustices some children are made to bear.
However, I do believe people who are of a higher rank on the food chain should not be given a child due to the amount in their bank account.
In light of recent events, it has become clear that if a person has enough money, he or she will most likely receive a child sooner than the law - nationally or internationally - may allow. He or she will probably be able to take a child away from his or her family, perhaps for good, and will not have to go through the proper channels in order to legally adopt the child. This is completely bogus.
Public figures like Madonna already get whatever they can possibly fathom, so when did children start appearing on their to-buy lists?
There are millions of children who need safe, loving homes in the United States and internationally, but it's still not fair that an average married couple in Stanford, Conn., cannot adopt a child at the drop of a hat just because they want to.
Madonna traveled thousands of miles earlier this month to an orphanage in the impoverished African nation of Malawi, dropped some money she probably had in her sock to build a new orphanage and left. Or rather the nanny left, with a 13-month-old boy named David Banda. I guess the little boy was a part of the deal as well.
When a hint of the transaction first splashed on entertainment news outlets across the world, Madonna was denying the adoption. Her publicist said she really didn't know if Madonna had adopted a child, but she did know Madonna was in Africa building a new orphanage for children she didn't want to adopt.
I am in no way saying Madonna is a bad mother. I am only saying average people don't have the same financial standing as Madonna and, apparently because of that, they have to wait longer to welcome a child into their home when it is so apparently easy for others who "donate" to the right organization.
It came to light Oct. 22 that the child's father is illiterate. According to The Associated Press, the father said he didn't know he was giving his child away permanently by signing an order he could not read - that gave Madonna and her husband Guy Ritchie full parental rights. He said the director of Child Welfare Services Penston Kilembe told him adoption did not mean he would not see his son again. He thought it was a temporary situation.
I am sure many other allegations and misunderstandings about this adoption will surface shortly. Celebrities already get enough perks as it is. Now that they're adopting children and not following vital rules that involve the welfare of a human being, when will we finally draw a line?
Deena Watts, a senior journalism major, is a staff writer for The Journal.
However, I do believe people who are of a higher rank on the food chain should not be given a child due to the amount in their bank account.
In light of recent events, it has become clear that if a person has enough money, he or she will most likely receive a child sooner than the law - nationally or internationally - may allow. He or she will probably be able to take a child away from his or her family, perhaps for good, and will not have to go through the proper channels in order to legally adopt the child. This is completely bogus.
Public figures like Madonna already get whatever they can possibly fathom, so when did children start appearing on their to-buy lists?
There are millions of children who need safe, loving homes in the United States and internationally, but it's still not fair that an average married couple in Stanford, Conn., cannot adopt a child at the drop of a hat just because they want to.
Madonna traveled thousands of miles earlier this month to an orphanage in the impoverished African nation of Malawi, dropped some money she probably had in her sock to build a new orphanage and left. Or rather the nanny left, with a 13-month-old boy named David Banda. I guess the little boy was a part of the deal as well.
When a hint of the transaction first splashed on entertainment news outlets across the world, Madonna was denying the adoption. Her publicist said she really didn't know if Madonna had adopted a child, but she did know Madonna was in Africa building a new orphanage for children she didn't want to adopt.
I am in no way saying Madonna is a bad mother. I am only saying average people don't have the same financial standing as Madonna and, apparently because of that, they have to wait longer to welcome a child into their home when it is so apparently easy for others who "donate" to the right organization.
It came to light Oct. 22 that the child's father is illiterate. According to The Associated Press, the father said he didn't know he was giving his child away permanently by signing an order he could not read - that gave Madonna and her husband Guy Ritchie full parental rights. He said the director of Child Welfare Services Penston Kilembe told him adoption did not mean he would not see his son again. He thought it was a temporary situation.
I am sure many other allegations and misunderstandings about this adoption will surface shortly. Celebrities already get enough perks as it is. Now that they're adopting children and not following vital rules that involve the welfare of a human being, when will we finally draw a line?
Deena Watts, a senior journalism major, is a staff writer for The Journal.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Deborah Marshall
posted 10/25/06 @ 4:41 PM CST
I agree completely with the writer of this article; I think it is ridiculous that celebrities can slip and slide through legal loopholes for not just adoptions but so many other things. (Continued…)
Post a Comment