Was she wise to adopt the ethiopian baby when she could have given money to the family to raise her themselves.She could then have stayed with her blood family.
2006-07-08 22:29:31 · 23 answers · asked by aliviel27 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
Not all celebrities, but many think the world revolves around them, and don't really put two and two together like you just did. With her, it's all about image. If she's looked upon as some bleeding heart that blindly cares about children, she's in vogue in Hollywood. She probably doesn't actually have that much to do with raising the child anyway. Just parades around with the baby for the cameras.
2006-07-08 22:43:09 · answer #1 · answered by 42ITUS™ 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think Jolie does a lot of things just for the publicity. Come on people Princess Di, she ain't. She's no more a humanitarian than Howard Stern. You don't actually think she raises these kids, do ya? Jolie just does stuff like this to make HERSELF look good! She probably has a whole staff of nanny's to take care of these kids and she doesn't even see them unless there are cameras around. I mean look at how she was when she had her own, they sold those pics to the highest bidder. What real MOM would intentionally put her baby on the 6:00 news.
2006-07-09 01:10:41 · answer #2 · answered by ~**badboys_wife**~ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The world would be a better place if more people, especially the wealthy, took the path of Angelina Jolie.
Her adopted kids were orphans. If she had given money for someone of their own ethnicity to raise them, there is no guarantee of what would have happened to those kids. Hopefully these kids would grow up, openminded and free of the many bias' that we have imposed on us, and continue their mom's work.
2006-07-08 22:55:17 · answer #3 · answered by metorido 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, she wasn't so smart to take the decision! I agree with you of the fact that she could give some money to the family to raise the child(ren) themselves. Actually, I also don't get the point of adopting children all the time... You can't get them all I say!
2006-07-08 22:34:04 · answer #4 · answered by ♥ Chelsea Blue ♥ 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Angelina's daughter Zahara, is an orphan. The parents died from AIDS, so yes, I think it was a wise choice for Angie to adopt the child.
2006-07-08 22:34:53 · answer #5 · answered by xquizit4sure_1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure WISE is the best adjective for this discussion.
How about: Was AJ:
Selfish? - NO
Thoughtful? - PROBABLY
Considerate? - IT DEPENDS ON DETAILS WE DON'T HAVE
Sensible? - I HOPE SO
Understanding? - IT DEPENDS ON DETAILS WE DON'T HAVE
Helpful? - IT DEPENDS ON DETAILS WE DON'T HAVE
Disrespectful? - NO
Compassionate? - YES
Sympathetic? - I DON'T KNOW
Empathetic? - I DON'T KNOW
Sensitive? - I THINK SO
Loving? - YES
Caring? - YES
Wise? - I have no idea - that would imply shrewd judgement based on knowledge. It would have to have been a purely logical decision, and that is something adoption cannot be - there is too much emotion involved.
2006-07-08 22:53:57 · answer #6 · answered by chocolette 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yea she should have let the baby stay in her blood family then Jolie could just give them money she would be more happier with her blood family its going to be a noisy life with Jolie the baby should be able to live in quiet places
2006-07-09 00:54:05 · answer #7 · answered by kimalison11 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not quite sure what exactly Angelina Jolie is trying, ultimately, to accomplish.
2006-07-08 22:34:24 · answer #8 · answered by percolated 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no wise and angela jolie should never be used in the same sentence! she would rather rip a kid from its family and have her house keepers and nannies raise it that its natural mother. shes a tad nutty..
2006-07-08 22:55:49 · answer #9 · answered by kingers332002 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe the baby didn't had a family.
2006-07-08 22:32:56 · answer #10 · answered by lelekid4ever 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋