English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-10-17 02:49:20 · 48 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Immigration

annie m,if she had down-syndrome would that be a no no? whats wrong with simple?

2006-10-17 03:00:09 · update #1

corrine h remember the karma you send out you get back 3 fold sohold on tight!.

2006-10-17 03:03:34 · update #2

48 answers

As far as I can see, the fashion, as set by Mrs. Jolie, is to adopt cutesy foreign children. I suppose maybe we shouldn't complain too much because in the end a child is getting adopted..
As long as everyone remembers that they're not just for Christmas.. Bad taste, I know.

2006-10-17 03:03:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I do agree that while she's trying to be a lot like Angelina, at least Angelina had the decency to adopt the legal way instead of the roundabout way. She also puts quite a lot of her time and money into humanitarian projects. I really rather respect Ms Jolie for that.

I don't think there's anything wrong with adopting from overseas, especially if you have the money to support the children, but somehow I feel that this poor chap will be cared for nearly 100% by nannies and carers. What's the point in adopting a child that you have little or no intention of caring for personally?

2006-10-17 03:01:58 · answer #2 · answered by Disgruntled Biscuit 4 · 1 0

I agree, it would mean a lot more to me if she helped someone closer to home. I guess she thinks it looks better if she's doing the right thing and helping someone who isn't white and in the UK because after all, the government only wants to help foreigners so why shouldn't she? I'll probably get a bad response to this but I think our government should help ENGLISH sick, homeless, poor, elderly etc. The same goes for celebrities who adopt. When celebrities do these things it's generally setting an example to others so why not start a good thing going by helping our own?

2006-10-17 04:44:16 · answer #3 · answered by claire 5 · 0 0

this relies upon which united states you stay in. Any western united states and also you would possibly want to no longer formally undertake a baby off the line without dealing with a criminal procedure. It does sound like you stay in a poor or arising united states, the position there are 1000's of poor human beings, and so that you would possibly want to get 1000's of poor youthful ones, some residing on the streets. i'm particular you would possibly want to take a baby or 2 residing house and promises them TLC, nutrition and garments and a sparkling residing house, yet even in case your united states might want to assist you formally undertake them is something you ought to ensure out of your reliable gadget. In such international locations with those situations, and also you comprehend the moms and dads of the youngsters you would possibly want to opt to guard, then perhaps if those moms and dads comprehend you provides their baby a extra constructive life, or possibly they don't seem afflicted about their youthful ones, then perhaps they could signal a paper to say they offer them up for adoption, yet perhaps this does no longer be lawful. i desire you're in a position to help a number of them, solid success.

2016-12-04 22:17:19 · answer #4 · answered by hausladen 4 · 0 0

Because adopting a child in London wouldn't get her all the television, news, and tabloid coverage !! Also, as others have said... Angelina made it very chic to adopt Asian and African Children

And without that media coverage, Madonna would be just another rich old woman living in England... isn't she about to release an album ??

Smart MOVE Press Agent !!

2006-10-17 03:36:41 · answer #5 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1 0

This little boy is just a fashion accessory, does anyone really think that she is gonna be a stay at home mum?. Its all about MONEY MONEY MONEY. There are so many children in the same position as Davie both here in UK and USA. But that would not make good press coverage for her.

2006-10-17 03:59:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Apparently, Dickensonian street urchins are not the celebrity craze de jour. But money talks, of course. In my opinion she is just a publicity seeking ego driven "person" ( I am being polite) At best, David will probably end up in therapy down the road. I hope his fate is better than that of Anna Nichole's son.

2006-10-17 03:02:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I wish everyone would stop kicking off about madonna adopting a baby,

that child is going to have a far better life than any other child on this planet, im sure she will give it all the love it needs.

plus most of the tramps on the streets in london are there for their own doing (fancy believing the streets are really gold)

the africans didnt choose to be so poor they genuinely need help more

2006-10-17 02:59:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Because by the time she had completed all the paperwork and went through the bureaucracy the kid would be 25 years old!

The British government doesn't care so much about African kids. Anyone can adopt one of those.

2006-10-17 23:31:58 · answer #9 · answered by karlrogers2001 3 · 0 0

Is a homeless child from London any different from one in Africa? What difference does it make where the child comes from? Are you going to adopt a homeless child and give him/her a chance at a better life? If you or I or anyone else is then I think we can comment - it not then do we have a right to criticise?

2006-10-17 03:04:17 · answer #10 · answered by Ni Ten Ichi Ryu 4 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers