Should Madonna be allowed to adopt 3 year old girl in Malawi?

MALAWI, AFRICA: The Material Mom is in Africa, in the impoverished nation of Malawi to attend a hearing in the Nation’s High Court this Monday–preliminary steps towards adopting another child, a little girl by the name of Mercy James (Great name, no?).
Everyone remembers a few years ago, Madonna and then husband Guy Ritchie drew heavy criticism for the handling of the adoption of David Banda, her adopted son. Some felt there was not enough sensitivity to the laws and culture of the country and that there was some presumptuousness in Madonna’s approach to the proceedings. And I agreed.
Madonna has clearly gotten it. (See, something good came out of her divorce.) And this time, she is playing by the book, I’m happy to say. She is, as we speak, in Malawi (according to Yahoo News), and as mentioned above, set to meet with the high court on Monday. But she is drawing heavy criticism once again. This time from a pecksniffian charity organization called “Save the Children” which is located in London. The spokesperson for the charity, Dominic Nutt (Love that name!) basically argues that Madonna should stop adopting kids in Malawi and instead give aid to the community from which the children are being taken so that kids like David Banda, and the little girl Madonna has her eyes on, Mercy James, can stay in Malawi where they belong, yet have a fine living.  Mr. Nutt feels these kids can’t all be “transported into Kensington London.” And he means that in the best sense because he cares so much for the kids.
I guess I understand Mr. Nutt’s sense of outrage and panic to some extent. But on the other hand, Madonna has only so far adopted one child and if the second adoption is successful, she will have adopted two children. It is not as if she is bringing an entire village of children from Malawi to take up residence in Kensington. She’s a woman. She is a mother. She is allowed to choose parenthood, and she is allowed to have as many children as she can afford to provide for…How come he isn’t as vocal against Angelina, I wonder? Is it because she doesn’t bring them to Kensington? Or is there another reason I can’t see?
But in any event, if Mr. Nutt’s point is that there are many other children who may not be so “fortunate” as to get picked by Madonna for adoption and who will not have such a posh life as Mercy and David, I can hear what Mr. Nutt is saying. But I don’t know if Madonna is responsible for that. She cannot logically be responsible for the entire fate of all children in Malawi or where ever else there are poor children.
And these charities don’t even work to solve the problem. As long as the human race exists, there have been these well meaning charities set up all over the place, including some of the more well-regarded ones who have been going into these countries to “help the poor people” but yet they have accomplished nothing as far as long term change in the lives of these people. So what is this guy’s point? Mr. Nutt will die and more people will come and replace him and continue to do the same work and these people’s lives will be the same or even worse.
I am not saying charities shouldn’t exist. I am not saying Madonna should or should not adopt. But I am saying that Mr. Nutt’s argument against Madonna adopting Mercy makes no sense. I don’t agree with it. And I don’t think that what Mr. Nutt and his charity is doing is worthwhile either. Because in the end, it does not work. It fosters dependence and a “poor me” mentality and it takes the power away from people. It does not teach self-determination, self-esteem and innovation. It just continues the cycle.
So if I had to choose between Mr. Nutt and Madonna on this issue, I am with Madonna. 100%. Sorry Mr. Nutt. But you’re argument is specious at best.