A few days ago I pointed out that several child rights groups in African were objecting to pop star Madonna’s attempt to bring a child to the U.S. or Britain.  Their objection wasn’t that Madonna is unfit for parenthood (which at least is arguable) but that international adoption of Africa’s 43 million orphans, many from AIDS, wouldn’t solve anything. Any action that doesn’t make Africa perfect, apparently, shouldn’t happen.

As I pointed out before, this completely ignores individual rights. It is in the best interests of the child to leave Malawi, and if his father wants to give the kid away to a better life, no one in the situation is hurt.

One group, Eye of the Child, has taken the whole thing a step further, filing a lawsuit. For the first time they’ve made an attempt to define the issue in terms of this individual child, saying that the adoption was akin to “selling property” and the suit is about “safeguarding the future of a human being who…cannot express an opinion.”

They still haven’t bothered to inform us how staying in a Third World country “safeguards his future.” “The government [of Malawi] faces strong challenges, including developing a market economy, improving educational facilities, facing up to environmental problems, dealing with the rapidly growing problem of HIV/AIDS, and satisfying foreign donors that fiscal discipline is being tightened,” according to the CIA World Factbook. The last two years have seen a drought.

And some have predicted that Malawi’s population will be 30 percent smaller in 2020 than it would have been without AIDS. Madonna is keeping this child from being part of that statistic.

I’m sure Eye of the Child could be doing much, much more productive things right now.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.