Global Pulse Blog

The BBC is running an article called Madonna Urged to Rethink Adoption, which you can find here.  Pop star Madonna is planning on adopting a second child from Malawi, a four year old orphan named Mercy James.  What I find interesting is that the NGO Save the Children is arguing against the adoption, because the child may have extended family in Malawi who could care for him.  According to the BBC,
Save the Children spokesman Dominic Nutt told the BBC’s Newshour programme: “For the most part so-called orphans in poor countries tend to have family still available to them, if not actually a parent still living.

“It is vital, we say, that children should not be taken abroad to be looked after but should be cared for in their own environment by their own community, ideally by their own family, particularly their extended family.”

Whether or not you think Madonna, personally, should be adopting a second child from Malawi is a seperate issue.  Save the Children apparently believes that NO CHILD should leave the country if there is any possible way to find someone else to look after them.  Particularly disturbing is the idea that they should stay in their own environment.  Why should a child born into poverty be forced to stay in poverty?  Why is it that an American woman can put her child up for adoption even though her parents, siblings, aunts and uncles are still alive, whereas a Malawian child should only be put up for adoption if he has no remaining relatives?

Americans routinely adopt children from foreign countries, with excellent results.  I don’t think Malawi should be excluded from that opportunity.