• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

CE: Debbie Rowe has come out to say, MJ is not the biological father of his children. Why did she do that?

Why would anyone ( money I am sure) purposely create a life for a person, who wanted a specific type of child. Is that playing God? Is that Hitleresque in nature? It just seemed obvious he chose Rowe because of her looks, and tied her eggs to that of a sperm donor he deemed right, and in his sick head tried to convince himself he could produce white children for the world to see.


Asked by Anonymous at 8:29 AM on Jun. 29, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (64)
  • Wow JackalsWife...ever heard the phrase "POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK?"

    Answer by AllAboutKeeley at 10:37 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • It was well known that Michael Jackson had major self-esteem issues. Maybe he felt as though his genes weren't good enough to pass onto his children. Maybe he found out he didn't have a high sperm count. Maybe he was gay and didn't want any part of him to touch a woman (including his sperm). Who knows? Who cares? I'm sure he loved those children as if they were his biologically and that is all that matters.

    Answer by AllAboutKeeley at 8:34 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • I don't think it was for looks. Maybe he knew he had mental problems so he did not want to pass them to his children.

    Answer by delilahsmom1177 at 8:47 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • Ok, but then she sold off her biological children for $$$ so what is worse-MJ who didn't like himself enough to realize many others did, or a woman who sells her own kids to a high roller? Then, whose kids are they and what a mess now!!! Money can't buy happiness people!


    Answer by Teachermom01 at 8:51 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • So, what. Maybe he couldn't have kids. Many celebrities adopt or dont even have kids at all. Celebrities do weird stuff. They are his children. End of story. Just like all of Angelina Jolie's adopted children are her children.

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:54 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • Teachermom01 ~~ She didn't "sell" her kids. She was a surrogate. Surrogates don't do what they do for free, ya know. She said herself that MJ wanted kids and she offered her uterus and the marriage was a cover-up.

    Answer by AllAboutKeeley at 8:57 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • I have the right to my opinion. Surrogate or not, they didn't need to cover it up with a fake marriage and such. I just answered a question so don't get your panties all up in a bunch!  LOL


    Answer by Teachermom01 at 8:59 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • Who cares? he is gone and the kids are not. They were legally his regardlless. Lets just hope they don't end up the victims of some crazy custody battle as they are mourning the loss of their father.

    Answer by Carpy at 9:17 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • Forgive me, Teachermom01, but my daughter is adopted and I can't tell you how many times I'm told that I "bought" her or that her BMom "sold" her. Children are not property or items to be purchased. Hearing anything even close to that sets me off. It's extremely disrespectful to all involved...most of all, the children. So, if my panties are up in a bunch, they have good reason to be.

    Everyone has reasons for doing what they do and I'm sure that when one does something, they are doing what they believe at the time is right. I'm not one to judge why they faked their marriage.

    Answer by AllAboutKeeley at 9:18 AM on Jun. 29, 2009

  • MJ had genetic skin condition. What is so hard do understand he did not want to give that do his kids. Surrogates don't have any rights for children. They give their rights away. He is gone,why don't we just let him rest in peace now.

    Teachermom are you a teacher? I hope not..


    Answer by Anonymous at 9:19 AM on Jun. 29, 2009