When my son was small I went through periods of thinking that I should adopt another child. It seemed unfair that my little boy should have so much - toys, books, games - when other children had so little. For various reasons - mostly because I had to work full time to provide those toys, books and games - I decided not to pursue it.
So I can totally relate to Angelina Jolie and Madonna's urge to keep providing homes for disadvantaged children. While you could argue that they seem to be involved in some sort of competitive adoption (you adopt from Malawi, I'll raise you India), I can understand that overwhelming feeling that when you have so much, you want to share it with those that don't.
Critics argue that they should simply donate money to deserving causes in poor countries instead, but as I understand it, they have both done this, too. And I think there are few of us who could visit a village of some of the world's neediest children and resist the urge to swoop them all up in our arms and bring them home.
Others have said that Madonna should not be thinking about another adoption a) as a single parent and b) so soon after her divorce. But children are only better off in two parent homes if they are happy homes. And you only have to see Lourdes with her mum to know how well-adjusted she is. I have no doubt that a new child in the family will be something positive for Lourdes, her siblings and her mother.
I have never bought the argument that children should be adopted by their own race, either. Two of my close friends were adopted by people of different ethnicity, and they both thrived in their adoptive homes. To suggest that they would have been better off waiting for adoptive parents of the same colour who might never have materialised is ludicrous. It is much better for children to have loving, caring homes - of any kind - than to be left wanting.