I'm sure Madonna means well, but I'd be even more impressed by her generosity if indeed she had offered to relieve the poverty of David Banda's father with direct financial support...providing Mr. Banda and David a safe and clean place to live, an income, a chance for Mr. Banda to get an education and then a good job, and for David to enter a good private school when he turns six. That would have made a difference in the whole family's life and shown true altruism.

I don't have much money, so I don't know how people like Madonna and Oprah (for that matter) choose to go about giving their money away. Yesterday's Oprah, for instance, profiled an African village woman with 10 kids who she was single-handedly supporting. The woman made a dollar a day hauling loads for people up and down a hill. At the end of the day, she used up all of her money to buy food for the family, which she then squatted down in her hovel to cook. Oprah had profiled the woman sometime before and had her producers look her up to see how she was doing sometime later. The woman was still a-haulin up and down the hill. Now Oprah says that everytime she thinks she's tired she thinks of that woman; so humble of Oprah, don't you think? I wonder how a woman of Oprah's massive wealth can think of a woman like that and now immediately get out her check book, buy the woman a house, set her kids up in school, and, perhaps, set the woman herself up in some sort of trade school. Or, hell, set up the entire village with some sort of community college/school/day-care center. I'm sure Oprah has her reasons, I just can't begin to comprehend them.

Same with this Madonna adoption. Why didn't she just help the kid's family, and allow him to stay with his father. Why would anyone of such means presume to remove a child from their birth country when the child's parent(s) are still alive, only having given up the child because of poverty? It certainly does smack of elitism of the worst kind. The message is simple: my money trumps your family bonds. It could be that the Vietnamese woman mentioned in this essay was being hostile for this very reason. (She could also have been asking the question sincerely; coming from Vietnam, she probably understands more about corruption than the writer here will understand in a lifetime.)

I am by no means saying international adoption is not a good thing. It obviously is, particularly in the case of places like China, whose mothers often abandon their girls. I know plenty of Chinese girls who have been adopted under these cirumstances, and, yes, I think they are lucky; I think it's okay to say that. The parents are lucky too, of course.

Adoption is wonderful, adoption is great. It's as valid a way to form a family as any other.

But there does seem to be something missing in this article, and indeed in a large part of the debate around Angelina Jolie and Madonna's adoptions. Why international adoptions? There are many, many children here in the US who need homes.

I've heard "you can't get a baby in the US these days without (a tremendously long wait/an open adoption/etc.)" - well, you can - just not always healthy white babies. But people who adopt overseas don't seem to care about the race of their children (though the overall tendency to adopt from Asia, Eastern Europe, and Russia does seem to say _something_ about racial preferences in adoption.)

What's so great about babies, anyway - why do so many people who want to give a child a home, or to bring a child into their lives, rule out older children?

I've also heard that "you can't be sure what you're getting in the US" with regard to health, family history, resignation of custodial rights, etc. Surely this is even more a problem overseas?

Honestly perplexed, hopefully-sometime-soon-to-be-an-aunt-again-to-a-child-who-will-be-adopted-in-the-US,

I adopted two boys out of foster care and so did my sister. The stigma that surrounds children in the US who need homes keeps many from even considering this as an option. It is very frustrating at the misinformation about the kids in foster care and the issues they have. Also, in the US, you don't have many fees at all to adopt a ward of the state. This ensures that the state can chose the best family instead of the family with the ability to afford it. I love my boys, they are wonderful kids. We have had little problems. My sisters boys are older and were in foster care for four years...16 placements! But they are doing great. No child, even ones who are born to you, come with a money back guarantee. Maybe some celebrity will adopt a kid out of foster care so that we can shine light on this issue and educate our country about the children in our own communities who need loving families.

What I don't understand is why Madonna is taking all the heat. Where is Guy Ritchie, who has presumably agreed to be the father? And what about the Jolie-Pitts? Didn't they say they wanted a rainbow family? How about getting after them for window shopping for kids. These are children, not U.N. reps.

Also, the author does nothing to refute that international adoption is baby buying. It's a crass term, sure. But people are making money off of this -- fine, they are working for it. But the sheer number of adoptions and the required visits in, say, Guatemala, are creating a whole little adoption village there with shops, restaurants, hotels and public servants doing nothing but catering to international adopters. This is not much different than the sperm/egg donation industry, let's just call it Phase II -- the Child.

Finally, Madonna probably wouldn't be taking so much heat if she hadn't set this up as a rescue mission and instead said she's desperate for more children. It's not a kid's job to be indebted to their parents, but when you look at adoption as a "good act" you're putting a heavy burden on the kids to do something great or make it worth it. I'm sure in 14 years will see a pic of Maddox at an LA nightclub screaming "I don't owe you a fucking thing," when we all shake our heads, tsk, tsk, and mumble about how he squandered an opportunity, it could have been so much worse for him, isn't he grateful for what a gift he has been given.

P.S. We know that Madonna will use David's childhood adjustments as fodder for more books and we'll be asked to buy them. So, for that, she's being hung out to dry.