Do you think that celebrities ,who don't have time for themselves can look after adopted children? Does a poor child need red carpet or his own environment? Should celebrities donate money to the poor families to look after their children instead of taking their child away? Madonna, Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt.....just search in internet for "either of these names" and "adopt." You will find out how Hollywood is playing with lives of poors.
2006-10-25 02:50:10 · 13 answers · asked by umeshzun 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Other - Entertainment
Its all californication....we just see the faces on screen.... its all opposite in reality..... Everywhere they talk about love...love ....love.... but no one knows what a love really is. Love means creating a balance. If they love children....then with their money they can give them heaven....by giving them schools, gardens, houses under their own world....they do not need to take them....!
For me personally.... I would eat mud with my lovely friends...rather than being stuck inside a golden cage.
2006-10-25 03:29:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My feeling is that there are too many poor, neglected, and forgotten children out there. I don't want kids, have no desire to have them. I think a lot of people should be sterilized because they can't even get their own sh#t together, let alone care for a baby or child. But the fact is there are a lot of unwanted chidren out there and I think that's pretty sad. If it is becoming a new trend for celebrities to adopt children, then great, I support it 100 percent. There's a kid who has a chance now. And whether or not these celebrities have the time to raise these kids is of little concern to me. Those kids will be fed and clothed and financially independant for the rest of their lives. Better than dying alone in an orphanage.
2006-10-25 10:12:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think brad and angelina are ok, they want to adopt from each continent plus their own kid, so it will make a mixed family and thats good for the kids to grow up in that environment, as for madonna, i think its good that she's adopting, but i dont think its good that she forced her way around the red-tape just because she's rich. the kids need familys, and why not let them have everything they've ever wanted as opposed to living in a country where they can hardly get clean water?
my mom and i had this convo last night, she doesnt think its right for white people to adopt black or asian kids. she thinks they'll be "confused". i think its fine for anyone to adopt anyone. i mean, these kids need loving homes, so what should it matter who provides it? its better than growing up in an orphanage or bouncing from foster home to foster home, having to change schools all the time, being taken away from friends and your new family memebers. she has a friend that adopted a kid from russia. my mom said thats fine cause they are both white. well, its still a cultural change, who cares what the skin color is, this kid didnt speak any english and now loves her new mom and refuses to acknoldge her old russian name or the fact that she even CAME from russia just because of the horrible life she had there before.
madonna already had a kid, maybe 2. she knows how to be a mom. its not like she's never done it before. and brad pitt always wanted children, now they have them, and they want to be a large happy family. isnt it better that they save the lives of 7 kids (one from each continant) then have 7 of there own kids and those others are still suffereing in poverty or loneliness?
and as for giving money to the family of the child so they can take care of the kids, i think if you put them up for adoption or abandoned them then someone else should be taking care of the kid. i wouldnt say dont ever let the kid see their real parents if thats what the kid wants, but i know if i was given up for the chance of a better life, i would want that chance, and when i had the means to do so, i would give back to my origional family to thank them for making that tough decision to try to make my life better.
2006-10-25 09:59:30 · answer #3 · answered by mickey g 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, to much go into effect with that question, and so many things have been said about the adoptions. I truly believe that it take a strong person to adopt children. If anyone can find it in their hearts to adopt, then they should. But I don't suggest they celebrities do it for attention. Like I heard Madonna was crying on Oprah. For what? Thats not her biological child and she barely know him. If his dad what him back give him back. I don't recommend taking people kids if they want them. Under no circumstances. Unless, abuse, drugs and others. Poverty is well known here in the US. We need help to!!
2006-10-25 09:58:41 · answer #4 · answered by Ms. Jacksonville, FL 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. These children have the chance for a good life now, food in their bellies, a fair chance at life. Maybe these stars are busy, but they must care, and even if they have someone watching after them....their lives are much better than before they got adopted. Angelina Joie donates 1/3 of her salary to charity...she obviously cares.
2006-10-25 09:53:58 · answer #5 · answered by circa 1980 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the one hand, it is good for the kids, they're getting out of poverty. But, I don't think the rich and famous should be able to bypass the country laws by donating money to get the kid. And yes, I'd say the nannies will be the ones most likely to care for the kids. I think in an ideal world, it would be best for the kids to stay with their own family, but sometimes that's just not possible.
2006-10-25 10:00:51 · answer #6 · answered by tikitiki 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not playing with the lives of the poor--but giving the poor new lives!
Who are any of us to judge the ability of a parent regardless of there stature in society or life!
I think starving & dying of aids is a much bleaker future then having a few cameras in your face!
2006-10-25 09:53:47 · answer #7 · answered by Heather 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Approve? Not my job. They get a lot of good press, so I guess they feel it is worth the trouble. As far as the children, they are just tokens in the game of life.
2006-10-25 09:58:56 · answer #8 · answered by bubu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they can take just one starving child and give him or her a home then that is a blessing. How fortunate for these poor children.
2006-10-25 10:01:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would be happier if instead of addopting they would give millions to charities and set up homes for the homeless.
imagine projects all over the country for the homeless.it would really solve the situation if they would all work together.
2006-10-25 09:58:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋