And any others hoping to jump on the bandwagon in the future, would it be best not to waste air fare and jet half way across the world, and have a walk around the less famous districts of the large cities in their own countries (Kings Cross, London, one example) at certain times of the night? Or would the class-orientated press not only sneer at the 'saviours', but indeed, the 'saved'; is the Vietnamese orphan more important than a discarded girl sleeping rough in one of the richest countries in the world, who has been pushed from pillar to post by uninterested social workers?
2007-03-16 06:23:19 · 13 answers · asked by nativexile 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
I realise the question might raise anger in some - it already has, but I wonder who else will be jumping on the bandwagon in time to come. Will adoption amongst the famous be treated like a lazy Saturday afternoon at Waitrose...'ooh look - the raven-haired Korean girl has a sweet smile, but her brother looks intelligent'.
2007-03-16 07:13:51 · update #1
they are bored and at the point where they have run out of material things to buy and consume so they try to fulfill their lives by adopting.....then the novelty wears off so they adopt again and again, then their adopted kids become socialite coke heads as they didnt see much of their parents who were busy adopting the next child...
2007-03-16 06:27:18 · answer #1 · answered by Carpe_Diem 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is weird at all, I think there are 2 reasons it makes perfect sense.
There are 3rd world nations where living conditions are so horrendous that living on the streets here would be a vast improvement. Giving one of those children a chance is creating a cultural bridge that is a wonderful thing.
Have you seen the press coverage every time an adoption happens in a 3rd world country? Translate that to the states and there would be hundreds more and a huge mess and the poor kids would be followed everywhere and the parents would get asked stupid questions about why they didn't adopt this one or that one instead. Give me a break. It says something when the celebs are getting married in other countries, giving birth in other countries, and adopting in other countries. Who in their right mind would endure or want their children to endure the invasion of press that we seem to think is ok?
Further, I think that the celebs would be overcome by "relatives" falling out of the woodwork the minute the adoption was final. Think about it. You think that wouldn't happen? Really?
It has in fact been going on for years, other folks have done it for years, we're just into passing judgment these days about how other people spend their money, and it is a shame. What is air fare when compared to life saved? A third world child that grows up not hating America, and appreciating the cultural richness of brothers and sisters from different parts of the world? Could be they are raising the global generation that will teach us all hope.
Maybe it's time that we looked at the uninterested social workers and starving children in our country and tried to fix those problems as they are quite more than a few adoptions by famous people can fix.
just a thought
Rowena
2007-03-16 06:58:29 · answer #2 · answered by Rowena 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ive been saying nearly the same thing to everyone I've discussed this with - sure its commendable to adopt children and use your fame to publicize adoption and these unfortunate children, but if they're so willing to help why doesnt someone like Angelina Jolie adopt a child from somewhere in the US? There are hundreds of thousands of poor children who need loving homes in the US and every other developed nation just as much as third world countries.........
2007-03-16 06:26:42 · answer #3 · answered by radiancia 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is weird is how people are acting like this is new. Hello don't any of you pay attention - just think back to the Rainbow Tribe that Josephine Bakker adopted? What about Nicole Kidman who adopted two children YEARS ago? What about Lionel Ritchey - adopted a child years ago?
I mean doesn't anyone read anymore? What a joke!
2007-03-16 06:34:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I appreciate that we have problems here too, but the people on the streets in Britain still have much better life chances than your average 2 year old in an orphanage in the 3rd world.
And there's less chance that the 2 year old ended up there of his own bad choices.
In any case, you can't tell people to satisfy their desire to take a baby into their home and raise it as their child by saying "go help some people on the streets". It's not the same thing at all, they're doing it because they specifically want to adopt and the orphans elsewhere are much more in need than the American/British/other Western babies up for adoption (who have hundreds of couples on waiting lists desperate to take them in).
2007-03-16 06:34:13 · answer #5 · answered by - 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes it seems to be the latest celebrity accessory to adopt a little child from one of the third world countries think they could do much better if they donated money or something instead ,
2007-03-16 06:29:24 · answer #6 · answered by jinx 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many of these celebs actually RAISE their own kids. I mean, don't you think some nanny staff does the day-to-day drudgery that nearly every parent must do? I think it's all about PR
2007-03-16 06:26:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
at the same time as i replaced right into a touch youngster. each youngster should be popular. yet then all that stress is on you and also you do drugs, similar with fashions. First at a youthful age, Actress, then singer, then form.
2016-12-02 02:31:29 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's really interesting, you've got me thinking. You're getting a star for that.
2007-03-16 06:29:54 · answer #9 · answered by Mrs. Noo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes charity begins at home.
2007-03-16 06:27:52 · answer #10 · answered by pups 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋