Heres whats going to happen. She is going to get bored with raising these kids and then move on to something else like curing AIDS. Word is that she already treats her own child worse than the ones she adopted. Why doesn't someone stop these people? Just because they have money they let them do anything they want. I know she can give the baby a better life fiscally, but she is basically stealing these kids from their families. Remember when you respond to this, that a mother in another country has had her child taken away from her.
2007-03-19 03:39:35 · 17 answers · asked by Paul S 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
Answer to the first question is she will give them over to the paid Nanny to raise...in the long run, might be a good thing with the right Nanny.
Secondly, sad, but true, yes, money buys every thing, especially in 3rd world, economically depressed countries. If it were cheaper in this country with fewer laws and restrictions, don't you think they would be recruiting from the trailer parks of Kentucy and Tennessee?
Thirdly, no, she didn't steal the kids away, she paid the parents a hefty sum. The parents truly hope that the American )that they likely have no idea who she is..not like the have much TV there, eh?) can provide a better life for their child that what they could with no jobs, depressed economy without running water and sewer system, than they know they can give the child.
2007-03-19 03:51:00 · answer #1 · answered by bottleblondemama 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For starters, looks like you already answered your own question. It's clear you have a very strong opinion on the subject and having made a generalization and come to conclusions on your own without being aware of other facets. When a child is set up for adoption it means that the mother either is unable to care for the child or is dead. Adopted babies are not stolen. I understand there is a black market where truly stolen children are offered for sale and purchased by wealthy people unable to conceive on their own and worse yet bought for "slasher" films (underground nasty stuff). Oddly enough these markets are prevalent all over the world and stranger still North Americans seen to contribute to this as well. I'd rather see more attention focused on eliminating that instead. There may be some celebs out there jumping on the adoption band-wagon for publicity but please try not to judge what you cannot back up with fact. We don't even know if Angelina is going to get "bored"
2007-03-19 03:52:51 · answer #2 · answered by OP 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The same thing she is already doing - give them to the Nanny to raise - that is except for those times when she needs them for a photo shoot or some other publicity stunt. She has already adopted children from Cambodia, Ethiopia, and now Viet Nam. I can't wait to see what 3rd world country she picks next to adopt a child from. Can you honestly see her spending quality time with each of these children, giving them a bottle, or changing a diaper? Or, when the get older, taking the time to go over their homework with them?
2007-03-19 04:30:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This has been going on for years. Jolie is just the most recent celebrity to add globe-hopping to her adoption routine. Look at Rosie! How did a strident, loud, obnoxious lesbian get to adopt as many children as she did? MONEY! Madonna with her obscene music and stage acts - how did she get to adopt children and skip the regulations? MONEY!
It happened back in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and on. As long as movie stars and other big names have money, someone is willing to sell children to them. Are the children better off? Only they know, and the only one I know of to write an expose on her famous "mother" was Christiana Crawford about Joan Crawford and her sadistic behavior.
My personal opinion is probably up there with yours! Angelina Jolie will get bored with Brad Pitt - she has with every other man she's had around. The thing is - she's got the money, like Madonna, like Rosie, like so many others, to hire nannies and caretakers for the children. They won't be hungry, or dirty, and hopefully won't be mistreated by the nannies. Does that make them better off? All we can do is voice opinions. We aren't there.
2007-03-19 03:51:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't know that I would call it stealing because she got all of the kids from an orphanage so she didn't snatch them off the street. The parents had left them and given up their parental rights long before Angelina came along. She has a better head on her shoulders than we give her credit for. As for the way she treats the kids: We are not there to see it and its not as if she is out partying all the time. She stays home with her kids. At least they are always with her.
2007-03-19 03:46:14 · answer #5 · answered by KID DESTINY 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well...i can say one thing to You. She won't get bored because she's not the one raising them, she has nanny's to do that. Second, how much of a mother can you really be if all this is to help get rid of your old sl*t reputation, and stealing somebody else's man. And to your last comment, no mother lost their child in the process, actually all of them were orphans, just to clear that up for you.
2007-03-19 06:50:23 · answer #6 · answered by Future Mrs. Hamlet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
wow that is a terrible thing to say. this is a woman who by all accounts puts her children before everything else in her life. she has slowed down her movie career, she has a first hand role in the raising of her children and she has never treated them as arm candy. she has a lot of love to give, when there are tons of needy children in the world that need a home she has chosen to adopt them instead of just having a bunch of her own. i think she is one of the few in hollywood worth admiring and of course people have to put her down for it.
2007-03-19 03:53:35 · answer #7 · answered by big_john_719 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think this a way for her to share her love for children, without having to go through the pain of having them. I do disagree with the fact that, she feels she must leave the country to find children to adopt. There are children in the US that need adopting.
2007-03-19 03:44:28 · answer #8 · answered by D W 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hey, Angelina is always with those kids....when she needs a photo shoot done for publicity that is.
I wonder how many times she has changed her own babies diaper-or would that be too degrading for her.
2007-03-19 03:49:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree i think its all show because they have money i dont think she should have taken that child because of the family
2007-03-19 03:42:35 · answer #10 · answered by lori b 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋