Posted on 10/27/2006 12:49:21 AM PDT by Mrs Ivan
The next child will be a specially-selected, multi-culti-approved, media-ready 1/4 Glaswegian, 1/4 Aborigine, 1/8 Mexican-Meztizo, 1/8 Finn, with a hunchback and clubbed foot, suffering from a seriously debilitating disase (preferaly whichever form of cancer is trendy amongst the celebrity set this week, and which hasn't had a colored ribbon assigned to it by whoever makes these decisions) and found in a half-full litter box in the jungles of Papua-New Guinea.
Let's see Madonna top THAT one.
"Why dont they just adopt an adoption agency. With their money they could support a good adoption agency and do some genuine good. They could stop by once in a while and see the kids, just like they will do anyway since nannies will be raising them most of the time."
Exactly. If they are looking for love from a child, they would get it back a hundred fold by putting these kids into a safe, sanitary, home with good schooling and plenty of food and moral teaching. It probably wouldn't cost more than what they'll spend on 3 spoiled kids raised by nannies back in a 1st world country, even with the payoffs to the govt thrown in.
We should not ridicule an act of charity simply because we disagree with the politics of the person who does it.
I may be wrong, but I haven't seen her using her children to garner media attention, and since that's so, I think it's entirely possible that she's simply doing the right thing. And since the thing she's doing is an indisputable act of charity, I for one will give her the benefit of the doubt until someone can demonstrate to me otherwise.
I disagree with her politics as much as anyone here, but I can't speak ill of an act that I find to be charitable.
If we are Christians here, let us take a Christian attitude, and despise only sin, not sinners.
Brad is saying what the Hell have I gotten into?
ML/NJ
"I believe I'm meant to find my children in the world and not necessarily have them genetically."
This woman may have the best of intentions, I don't know. But I am reminded of Madonna who had an abortion because it ruined her figure just before her world tour and then went out and adopted another man's child.
Jolie is not married, in a fairly new, somewhat erratic relationship, working like a dog making films and adopting kids along the way from countries all over the world. She's freely admitted she would rather keep a man and had bisexual stints. I have to say this woman strikes me as quite bizarre.
I guess when you have money you can do strange things but I don't see her as anything to admire.
You know, you just can't please the FR crowd. No...no to abortions...please adopt...when someone does...no...no...they are doing it for publicity, for their own self egos, etc. Now, the FR crowd wants them to adopt grown children to show true empathy. Reckless thinking.
The smartest post on FREEPERS in a long time!
Oh, I don't blame you at all. I'm the same. Still, there is a positive message that's conveyed to those who are paying attention and who actually need that message. The rest of us roll our eyes but realize in the end this is, even if it's a publicity stunt, a better life for the child in question. I do appreciate the message of the "Rainbow family" thing. It speaks positive of a very real aspect of my daily life and promotes it to others who may not see things in "technicolor".
"Sporfle"...*chuckle* I'm going to use that one. Gotta love FR, where one can be educated daily by the finest minds on the net. : )
Good... maybe she will stay home, quit making crappy movies, and disappear from public view. She really should make up with her dad.
LLS
Well said!
Hey...let's start a fan club for me. You can be President. Snicker...
"Josephine Baker could afford to do that. Not only was she well-off, she was a heroine of the Resistance in the Second World War."
Thanks for that information. I didn't know that she was active in the French underground, but after you posted I looked her up and saw that she was ultimately awarded the Croix de Guerre. Quite impressive!
I'm quite disappointed with the Freepers on this thread. While I still question the skirting of the laws for Madonna's adoption, I've never seen any questionable practices with regards to Jolie's adoptions - other than some bogus story in the Sun I think about some women who claimed she was the mother of the Zaraha (the mother was paid for the article probably). Angelina was talking about adopting another baby just a few weeks after giving birth. So somehow I don't think this is an attempt to one up Madonna.
Yes, we may feel that there are children in our foster care system that need to be adopted, but she is giving these children a better chance in life than they would have had in their native countries. Zaraha was a very sick baby when Brad and Angelina adopted her. She probably would have died if she stayed in the orphanage any longer.
And from all the pics I've seen of them - and there are plenty because the paparazzi loves them - they always seem to be very hands on with their children. It's not often that you see those babies being carted around by nannies only.
Not only that, but whether you agree with her politics or not, she is not a "do as I say, not as I do" type of person. She may lobby our government and other governments for certain causes, but she also donates 1/3 of her own earnings to charity. Just recently they donated a large sum of money to start a foundation in the memory of Daniel Pearl.
So I think many Freepers should consider not being so hard on someone that really wants to do what she can to help give others a chance in life.
PS - Had to step away while typing this, so apologies if some had brought this up, and especially if they’ve articulated it better (no caffeine yet this morning).
We have no idea what really happened between Angelina and her dad. She may very well have the best reasons for cutting him out of her life.
Well, in third world countries I don't think it's a matter of not being able to have an abortion. Usually the child is homeless because his mother/father died due to lack of modern medical attention and his mother/father or other family members that are still alive just cannot afford to raise the child. This is the case in Madonna's latest adoption. There is a father that would like to take care of his child, but he can't afford to. He didn't abandon his child, he still visited him regularly and I'm sure if his fortunes changed he would have taken his son back to live with him.
Having money and an education given to them by a rich celebrity is not, in itself, a ticket to happiness for these children. As hard as it is to believe for those of us accustomed to so much, some of these children would be better off and happier if they were left in their own cultural environment. Poverty makes life hard, but all poor people do not live a worthless, miserable unhappy life.
I guess I know a bit more than you, because I have seen both of them talk about it.
LLS
You've seen him speak about it. She once mentioned that she blamed his infedelity for the breakup of her family, but she has constantly said she will not speak about what publicly discuss her reasons for final estrangement.
So of course you are getting one side of the story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.