Im thinking..

[palefrost]

I was doing a little reading on this last night and it looks like the majority of Americans adopt Chinese baby girls at a very high number. The reason is because they are not wanted by the culture since they have that ban on one baby a house (which is ridiculous and they will suffer now for it) and the fact that the birth parent is completely removed from the picture.

None of the parents involved want to ever loose the child so they would rather deal with a foreign adoption it looks like which i thought was interesting.

 

[framed]

What makes you think that taking a child away from the only home he has ever known, a different culture, being put in a family of complete strangers to be raised ny nannies (after all hasn't Madonna admitted that she has like 3 nannies?) most likely to never see his family and friends again would be better for him?

Specifically because they have reliable food, clothing, and shelter. Basic survival requirements are unarguably more important that culture. They'll also have a better education, which is also arguably more important than culture.

If these poeple want to help out so much then why aren't they adopting AIDS children or kids with physical and mental disabilities?

You seem to be saying "i reject their good deed as not being good enough", whereas I'm saying "they did a good thing, and these kids will be better off for it".

These types of children are in abundance in the United States, and they need people who have the financial ability to care for them socially and medically. There are also a lot of older children in need of homes. These are the points I am trying to shed light on here.

I agree that there are disabled and older children in the united states that need homes. However, if you want a "normal" kid under 1 year old there are not many of those in the United States. In any adoption there are personal aspects to it along the lines of what type of child a parent wants. You seem to think its not valid to want to adopt only a healthy baby, as opposed to "send me your worst". I agree with you that it'd be great if people (celebrity or not) didn't care what type of child they got, but the statistics say most do.

 

[eldragon]

Jolie's first adopted son is from Cambodia, which is in Southeast Asia.
Her adopted daughter is from Ethiopia.

I applaus Jolie and Pitt for all they do.

About Madonna? Time will tell what she's all about - for now - I don't know. But at least she does something.

 

[palefrost]

Blah the new site ate my last post on this topic. Madonna is doing a interview with operh to talk about her side of the matter this week. That just makes me laugh.

 

[vicki2]

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one with 'eaten posts'! There were threads, like this one, where I posted and now it doesn't exist.

The Madonna/Oprah appearance is getting more teasers than I can believe today. I shan't be watching lol.

 

[palefrost]

Madonna/Oprah. Talk about a sell out team. Oprah has become the spokesperson of the celebrities who are looking for credibility! If Jennifer aniston uses her one more time to announce what her relationship is doing... im gonna scream!

 

[hokeshel]

I would have liked to haev seen this, especially when I just keep hearing things about the adoption that bother me. Did anyone watch it?

 

[palefrost]

Naa didnt bother watching. I didnt want to give her the air time. LOL. The spin doctors have prepped her and had the story all perfect.

The end result for me is she has no prior interest in helping the impoverished nations and has shown in the past she does things to shock and start trends then quickly abandons them. The concern is this child is a trend and will be dis guarded to a nanny or used to create some press. Talking about it on oprah doesn't help that view either.