Madonna has just adopted one and Angelina Jolie looks like she is shopping for another one. Is this just a fashion statement? Aren't there any orphaned children in the UK/US that are destined for a life of poverty if not adopted. It also seem rather unfair that celebs use their enormous wealth to save one child when the others are left behind. Why not use the money to help alleviate the poverty of a whole community rather than one person? And is it just my imagination or do the children chosen for celeb adoption always look suspiciously cute? If this is a truly selfless act then why not adopt a child with some sort of physical or mental handicap? Most of these children would have a much tougher time surviving than an able bodied child.
Ok, I know this is just a bit of a rant and most of it is rhetorical but I would be interested to here other peoples views on celebrity adoption. Is it really done with the best interest of the children or is there a bit of vanity involved? Who can sa
2006-10-10 22:47:53 · 33 answers · asked by John D 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
PUBLICITY
nothing more than publicity
they have nannies to take care of the kids. they do their thing and the kids just lives there.
2006-10-10 22:49:02 · answer #1 · answered by Trollhair 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lots of celebs do seem to be adopting children nowadays and perhaps it is just a fashion statement or a bid to get good publicity but look at it this way even if the celeb has done it for these reasons think what a better life they have given these children anyway. The alternative could be that the child wouldn't even see their next birthday if left in their home country, at least by being adopted by some of the wealthiest people on the planet they have hope for the future, they have food, stability and a loving home. Whatever the reason I think its admirable for anyone to bring another child into their home, I may be selfish but I couldn't do it as I know I couldn't match the love for them as I do my own child. I would also like to point out that celebs have always adopted children, look at Lionel Richie with Nicole, ok she has perhaps gone down the wrong route with her ultra skinny look and her stint in rehab, but left as an unwanted child she could have died or been abused etc years ago.
2006-10-13 12:57:23 · answer #2 · answered by Cabbage Patch Girl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In terms of Hollywood celebs adopting, i definitely think it's a vanity thing. I can't believe how easy angelina gets to adopt kids. Couples i know have to jump through all sorts of hoops , lose weight and some more just to apply for an adoption. process also is lenghty for us normal people, but not for celebs.
In terms of alleviating whole community versus saving one life is very debatable. Both are worthy causes, and i don't think one is any better than the other. In that sense, i don't think adopting a kid from a third world countries is a bad thing.
Having said that, where i live, you can only adopt third world countries as there are no kids available for adoption here.
2006-10-10 22:52:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well aren't we a cynical bunch?
Frankly I don't care why they do it, or any charity work, the point is that someone's life will be better for it and that's good enough for me.
Just because they're celebs doesn't mean they aren't capable of human emotions- maybe they genuinely DO care and want to help someone, maybe they love children and want bigger families? Every little thing they do is discussed by the media, this doesn't mean every decision they make has to be for it's sake. Yes, things like this bring publicity benefits- but there's no way around that- it does NOT mean that was the whole reason for doing it.
We can't assume that every decision they make in life has to do with their career. They're people too!
And when it comes down to it, would you rather they did nothing good with their money?! I don't understand how anyone can criticise people for doing good things. Do you think more of people like Kate Moss who spend their fortunes on drugs and fancy clothes? Why do we find it so hard to believe that a celebrity could want to do good for any reason other than selfishness?
2006-10-10 23:13:30 · answer #4 · answered by - 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not sure. I have mixed feelings on this. I'm sure some of them really do care for the kids they adopt. But at the same time I'm pretty certain some of them just do it for the attention. I also wonder why they can't adopt kids from the states, there are plenty of american children who need a good home. my mom and dad adopted 3 of my sisters from right here on the US, and they did it with out a parade or cameras.
2006-10-14 15:07:25 · answer #5 · answered by Sophia W 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Publicity
2006-10-10 22:49:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree. The worrying thins is that most of these children aren't orphaned, their parents are forced to give them up as they are too poor to care for them. Celebrities like Angelina Jolie chose to tear a family apart rather than enable the parents to care for their baby. How sick!
2006-10-13 23:08:38 · answer #7 · answered by Dancing Queen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It annoys me when celebs go abroad and go on about the plight of children in poorer countries when they have needy children on there door step! I think it's like picking a handbag for some celebs is a status thing and when do they look after there kids when they have nannies there for them. Then they preach to us about it ,i know there are children out there who need help why don't they club together and put money to better use and help all the children that need it. Then picking the one they want like clothes out of a catalogue.
2006-10-11 00:26:13 · answer #8 · answered by sez75 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
perhaps it is a publicity thing .. perhaps it's upper middle class guilt .. maybe cos the time and money is available to them to do such a thing, they do it! ... or perhaps it's a genuinely selfless sentiment that should be admiried instead of scoffed at. Either way, at least there is now a child that is probably better off than they were before.
Either way , pay no attention to such things and they are more likely to be done for the right reasons otherwise we are supplying the publicity for it.
I do know one thing though.. most the people saying "huh .. she's doing it for piblicity", have rarely done anything to help anyone, for publicity or otherwise.
2006-10-10 23:01:57 · answer #9 · answered by blue_cabbage 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that it is mostly wanting media attention. It's all about being noticed and portraying a sensitive immage to the public. Also, once again they are proving how easy it is to get anything you want. It would take the average citizen months if not years to adopt a child from another country.
2006-10-10 22:51:04 · answer #10 · answered by roxy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i want to adopt, just the question where, u get choose, tho it doesnt realy mater where. i dont really care. n incase u havent noticed angelinas adopted daughter isnt that pretty. the thing is people cant adopt some one whos has deformitys and stuff. i dont know y but they cant. i think u right about somethings. htough i dont liek it when people use science as a way to mak more babys when theres one who needs it already. u could have used the money to discover about ivf and stuff to help other kids who really need it. i think its a bit selfish if some1 uses science, then u having it for urself, not for the child.
2006-10-10 23:55:25 · answer #11 · answered by som1 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋