Thursday, October 19, 2006

Honey, They Got Me Riled Up

Boy, I tell you. You criticize Madonna and the 'Mos all come out screaming!

My blog entry this past Wednesday was less about Madonna and more about adoption in general. And it's really easy for me to get passionate about this, seeing as how I was adopted and all. My only real issue with Madonna is that if she wanted to adopt an African child whose life has been victimized by poverty and AIDS, she could have easily gone to South Africa - that place is riddled with children who need parents too. AND, it's LEGAL to adopt children there. She possibly chose Malawi so that she could be the only person in the western world with a Malawian child. I mean, come on - it is, after all, Madonna. And that's my opinion that I am entitled to believe (the same way I believe that Uli should have beaten Jeffrey). Because really, there is no way to prove it one way or another.

My problem with the "Madonna situation", however, centers more around the fact that her potential son, David, already has a father who placed David in an orphanage when David's mother died soon after giving birth to him. Let's be clear here - Madonna is adopting a child from an orphanage, but she's not adopting an orphan. David has a father who has shirked his responsibility.

-- pulling out soapbox --

Let me shout out loud here that first and foremost, it is the responsibility of the parent(s) to raise the(ir) child. That's your job: you get a new title, unconditional love, dependability, and all that goes with the responsibility of being an adult. If God made you physically capable of reproduction, then you are mature enough to handle the responsibility, regardless of your financial situation or your environment.

Let me add that having a child may be the single-most selfish thing a person can do. It has nothing to do with the child and absolutely everything to do with vanity and tradition. People have children for their own reasons, as the child has no reason to be born otherwise. I cannot accept bringing a child into the world when you are already aware that the elements (life, finances, time) are against you. In David's case, his father said "I am the father of David, who has been adopted. I am very very happy because as you can see there is poverty in this village and I know he will be very well looked after in America."

Okay. This might be me at my most ignorant, but when you are aware that your child has little chance of survival, why on earth bring a child into the situation? Some people will argue that these people (Malawians, for example) are undereducated and don't know any better. But if a one year old touches a hot stove and burns himself, he might touch it once more to be certain of what happened, but then that's it - he's done. There's no going back and learning that lesson again and again. If you look around you and children and adults are dying, poverty surrounds you, and life is horrible, what kind of selfish person must you be to bring a child into the situation, and then give it up when you realize its too much to handle??

-- putting soapbox away --

So please spare me the endless harangues about how wonderful Madge is for snapping a child out of an abyssmal situation. She can adopt the whole country for all I care. They can all call themselves "Madonnians" or something. But unless you know what it's like to be given up - not because you don't have parents, but because they just didn't want the responsibility of raising you - as I was, then save your lectures for someone else, please.

On Monday, we will return to our normally boring, yet sometimes interesting blog.