Whilst their intentions may be honourable, I believe it is a case of one-upmanship to out-do each other.
If they really want to help people in those poor countries, I think they could support an entire family through Child Aid, and similar Charities, (but not the sort where the various Governments cream off the aid). That way, the children stay within their own group/village and know who they are and all about their own culture.
2006-10-06 01:37:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Adopting a child that needs a home IS NEVER A JOKE!!Whatever the case may be,they will definitely have a better life and a better upbringing then they would if you left then back in Africa[or whatever other country],to let them die from some disease,or from hunger.Most kids today that arent even celebrity kids still get brought up by nannys or grandparents cause mommy and daddy have to work all the time.What should those parents do?Not work,so they can stay home and raise their kids?That would be ideal but we dont live in Utopia.Anyway,Im almost certain that most of these celeb parents are doing a great job raising those kids and that those kids are MUCH better off there then they would be back home!
2006-10-06 01:37:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by firefly 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
For Angelina Jolie it was definitely a publicity stunt. Think about what her reputation would be if she didn't adopt? And how come she just went to Ethiopia and came back with a baby girl, just like that? Normally you have to wait ages when you want to adopt. I read a story about a woman who wanted to adopt a particular little girl from China and she had to wait long to sort everything out. Sorry for that, but I think Angelina simply bought Zahara, she gave money to whoever was in charge of her. $1000 is nothing for her but it's millions for Ethiopians.
Anyway, I think it's better for these kids to be adopted by celebs than starve to death in Africa, nanny or no nanny. And 'cos their parents are rich, they'll have a possibility for a good education. I don't think cultural differences matter, when you're brought to US or UK at such an early age, you'll just be American or British of different origins, there are thousands like that. Later in life they might want to explore the country where they came from. So, I think it's not as that bad in the end.
2006-10-06 02:47:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by La 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's getting out of hand, to be sure. However, I suppose one could also argue that being adopted by a celebrity is not the worst thing that could happen to a child who has no home, food, or in some cases, even basic care.
Of course, the unfairness of it is evident to those "average" people who have been bearing interminable waits to adopt children. Just another in-your-face example of the perks afforded celebrities.
2006-10-06 01:31:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by AliGrace 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
i agree it is a little ridicules, but on the other hand where would you rather be in an orphanage in africa or at madonnas pad, who cares if there is only the nanny, theres food and clean water, clean clothes, no flies, and they dont have to watch thier friends die. I agree that maybe they should spend a little more money on the orphanages too though fixing them upto give the rest of the kids left behind a little better life.
2006-10-06 01:29:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by RHONDA P 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
not really. if they have the means to take these children away from the poverty and the diseases that run rampant in those coutries than all the better for them! if i had the kind of money madonna has, i would do it.
but madonna didn't actually adopt a baby, she's trying to help an orphanage get up and running that original news article has been corrected by madonna's spokesperson...saying that atleast it's bringing people's attention to the suffering and stuff in malawi.
2006-10-06 01:28:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by bored_ass_little_girl 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It IS a joke. The celebrities aren't doing it out of care and concern for the children but as a way of drawing attention to themselves. Madonna is a perfect example. She is an old has been who can't let go even though she's wayyyyy past her prime as a performer. She probably feels that adopting a child will draw attention to her and it will, but it won't help an old voice box.
If those celebrities actually cared about children they would help out without calling attention to themselves in the process. When they do something "good" and then notify the media it's for their own benefit.
2006-10-06 01:33:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
i think its a combination of things. the cleb gets some good press and can show the world how caring she is. and there may be some truth there but i doubt in most cases any real concern is a minor part of it. she also get to feel good and be able to tell herself what a good person she is. this may be a major factor since most clebs deep down know that they are not all that important and do not really count for much in the big picture. there may also be keeping up with the Joneses issue as adoption becomes the in thing to do at the moment. a last thing to consider is the need to have at lease one person to love you for something more that the money and fame. any of these people could do so much more that just save one kid so i suspect their reasons to be shallow and mostly a publicty scam. after all in their world everything is about them
2006-10-06 01:45:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by glen t 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't mind. Actually I think it's great. Lucky kids. I read today that Madonna will not adopt the baby. She will sort of adopt the whole village or something like that. She will donate a lot of money for the charities and she will be really involved herself. I think that's great!
2006-10-06 03:32:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The good thing is at least these kids will have a decent life but if celebrities really wanted to adopt solely out of the goodness of their hearts, then why do they make such a huge media song and dance about it? They are exploiting the children to make themselves look at modern day saints...pathetic.
2006-10-06 02:43:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋