# Jolie and Pitt adopt another child



## Paulfromitaly

Hello Folk,

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have just adopted another child.
This time the lucky(?) one comes from Vietnam whereas the two children they have already adopted come from Cambodia and Ethiopia.
Am I the usual nagger seeing that I have the impression that they find it amusing to go in a foreign country and buy (oh sorry, I should say adopt) a child in such an easy and superficial way as they were to purchase a new car or did I get it completely wrong and the guys here really have a heart of gold?
What do you think about famous people who can't help adopting kids from all around the world?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6452741.stm


----------



## Bilma

I think it is all a show. Why does she have to go to Cambodia, Viatnam and Ethiopia to adopt a child when there are millions of kids in USA who need to be adopted??  

Answer - Just for the show!!!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Bilma said:


> I think it is all a show. Why does she have to go to Cambodia, Viatnam and Ethiopia to adopt a child when there are millions of kids in USA who need to be adopted??
> 
> Answer - Just for the show!!!



Of course I agree with you..how sad is playing with unconscious children just like they were puppies? 
(Madonna adopted (bought) an African baby? ok, we want a Vietnamese one then!!)


----------



## capsi

well may be they wish have a human zoo,where  human specimen from each part of the world would be kept.....not a bad idea! what do you ppl say? 

if you really care for children you can adopt from your own place,but if they do so then the media wont say,see them ,they are so great, and if you adopt from a poor african or asian country then you can have 100times free publicity all over the world.


----------



## la reine victoria

I really don't think it matters about the child's nationality. Adopted children are not a status symbol. They are just fortunate children who are given a new start in life. Whether the adoptive parents are celebrities, or Mr and Mrs Unknown, let's rejoice in the fact that a child has been saved from a miserable life in an orphanage.  And that it will be loved and cared for in a family environment.

LRV


----------



## PaoPao

I agree with la reine victoria.


----------



## Bilma

la reine victoria said:


> , let's rejoice in the fact that a child has been saved from a miserable life in an orphanage. And that it will be loved and cared for in a family environment.
> 
> LRV


 

You are so right. I had missed that point, but now that you mention it I agree!


----------



## ElaineG

Bilma said:


> I think it is all a show. Why does she have to go to Cambodia, Viatnam and Ethiopia to adopt a child when there are millions of kids in USA who need to be adopted??
> 
> Answer - Just for the show!!!


 

What?!  Actually, as some one with some rather personal experience with the issue, there are not _millions of kids in the USA who need to be adopted_.  There are very few, compared to the numbers of families who want them, nowadays.  

As a single woman, which Angelina Jolie is for adoption purposes since many agencies do not consider an unmarried couple as a couple, international adoption is the _only_ way to go, unless you want to adopt a teenager or wait a very long time.

What's wrong with international adoption anyway?  Should we wait for Vietnamese families to be able to adopt all the children in orphanages there? Cambodia? China - with its birth control policies?  Is it better to leave a child to grow up in an institution?  

And if Angelina Jolie wants to adopt, why shouldn't she?  She is always with her children (not out partying) and she's actually been a great spokesperson for the cause.

If anything frustrates me, it's that it seems that celebrities, here and abroad, skip the adoption red tape and hassle, which takes years, is very invasive and costs tens of thousands of dollars.  

But it's hard to resent anything that gives a child a loving home.


----------



## Bienvenidos

As a child of desperate, war-torn country, I must say that what Angelina and Brad are doing is absolutely amazing. There are so many children around the world who struggle and suffer to survive in their homelands. Those who are lucky enough to emigrate to safer, more prosperous areas are faced with extreme cases of racism and culture shock. What the media is doing is absolutely despicable and extremely brutish. These people are saints for giving children who would never experience life a chance to live in luxury. Madonna, Brad & Angelina, these are celebrities who make millions of dollars; it is not their responsibility to adopt children, but they do, and for that I absolutely salute, extol and give my respect to them. Adopting a child is a decision that lasts forever; raising that child and supporting that child takes dedication. If these celebrities were doing something for "media coverage," it would not be adopting a child. Adopting from these third world nations is a huge responsibility, and these respectable souls have stepped up to the plate and showed the world how caring they are.

What they are doing is amazing. Life is not easy; each year, thousands and thousands of families across the world live on less than $2 a day. These celebrities are using their own "celebrity" to help the world out, and for that, they deserve our utmost respect.

Think about it: if you were a child living in a poor village in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Sudan, Vietnam or wherever else it may be, your life would be rather desolate. These children, by being adopted, are being given the chance to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that the Western world has to offer.

We shouldn't be scrutinizing these celebs, we should be commending them.


----------



## ElaineG

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Why don't the celebrities who are adopting currently adopting kids think about taking in an Iraqi child? God knows many are desperately in need.


 
I'm sure a lot of people would want to adopt Iraqi children if there were an infrastructure for it.  I'm not familiar with one at this point, and I don't find that surprising, since it's obviously an issue that needs to be handled with care, and the Iraqi government has a hard time doing almost anything these days.

It's not like you can walk into a country, put a child in your backpack and walk out.



> The Department of State has received many inquiries from American citizens concerned about the plight of the children of Iraq and wondering about the possibility of adopting them. At this time, it is not possible to adopt Iraqi children, for several reasons.
> 
> ...
> 
> The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has confirmed that Iraqi law does not currently permit full adoptions as they are generally understood in the United States.


 
http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/country/country_401.html


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ElaineG said:


> It's not like you can walk into a country, put a child in your backpack and walk out.



I'd kindly disagree on this point: you, all the other foreros and I cannot walk into a country, put a child in our backpack and walk out, but for some reasons related to their richness and celebrity Pitt and Jolie (and Madonna and many others) can.
More: they also have the  irrepressible need to tell the mass media about it.


----------



## Brioche

Paulfromitaly said:


> I'd kindly disagree on this point: you, all the other foreros and I cannot walk into a country, put a child in our backpack and walk out, but for some reasons related to their richness and celebrity Pitt and Jolie (and Madonna and many others) can.
> More: they also have the  irrepressible need to tell the mass media about it.



Money speaks all languages, and even those hate the US are happy to take US Dollars!

Given the life style of film folk, it's a fair assumption that these kids are going to spend most of their time being looked after by a low-wage child care worker, and not with "mom" and "dad".

Pitt and Jolie adoptions are not possible under Australian law. Would-be adopting parents normally go through the State government welfare agencies. Parents wishing to adopt privately must have lived in the country for _more than 12 months_ before applying for a visa for the adopted child. 

There are many ophaned and severely deprived children in the world. Per capita income in Vietnam is less than $700 per year. Just think how many Vietnamese orphans could have been helped by the cost of the first-class airfares, just getting Pitt, Jolie and entourage to and from Vietnam.  Then add in the cost of first-class hotels, &c, &c for the happy couple and entourage. One person for one night in the Presidential Suite would run a orphanage for a year. They weren't staying at the Youth Hostel!


----------



## Etcetera

I agree with Her Majesty. 
And I'd like to point out that Mr Pitt and Ms Jolie are very popular, so there are people who would like to follow their example. The example they show by adopting kids is a good one. 
I definitely prefer this pair to those celebrities who only drink and drive thei cars at utmost speed.


----------



## AngelEyes

It's a win-win situation when a celebrity adopts a baby. The overriding issue is that a child is saved. Who among us can think that's a bad thing? Also, maybe they do it partly for the publicity. They can't control the media, either, so it's going to happen whether they want it to or not. The whole world will learn of their largesse.

Another element is their wealth. It enables them to hire people to help in the raising of any kids they buy. Their lives won't be interrupted too badly because they can go on with their careers, somebody will raise the children, and they'll look good in the entire process. 

It sounds like I support them, doesn't it? The only thing I see as a positive is that a child gets saved. The rest is...bull.

I'd like to know why they always adopts babies. There are a lot of older children who nobody wants because they're not cute and cuddly anymore. I don't know the statistics in the United States, but I bet there's enough to go around for all the celebrities in Hollywood.

If they really want to do a good thing, adopt one of those kids. If they really don't want to be hounded by the press, close the door and shut up about it. 

It's not that they do it that I find objectionable. It's how they do it, where they go to do it, and what I think is their motivation for doing it. But who can tell? A child gets saved. How do you get beyond that point?

Still, something is causing this bad taste in my mouth.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Brioche

AngelEyes said:


> It's a win-win situation when a celebrity adopts a baby. The overriding issue is that a child is saved.
> 
> It sounds like I support them, doesn't it? The only thing I see as a positive is that a child gets saved. The rest is...bull.
> 
> A child gets saved. How do you get beyond that point?
> 
> *AngelEyes*



How do I get beyond that point? 
Because it was only *one*. 
Because the same amount of green-house gas could have saved may be one hundred, may be one thousand.

If Pitt and Jolie want a cuddly fashion accessory, they can buy a dog.


----------



## AngelEyes

Brioche,

I really do agree with your points, and I share them. I don't respect these celebrities for doing this. 

But still, a child is saved. I know you are happy about that part of it. 

The problem is, and maybe it's what motivating your feelings, is that *they* know it, too, and they know that it's the one thing that will make them look good.

I believe that's why they do it. I can't prove that, but I believe it. One of the reasons I do is as I stated before. Why always an infant? My answer would be that one reason is a baby plays perfectly to the pictures on the front pages of newspapers. They look sweet and scared and they don't speak. Imagine a 10 year-old who's angry and having a bad day. You can't control those kids.

Personally, some of them shouldn't even own a dog. I read somewhere that Paris Hilton got rid of one of her dogs because it was getting too big to lug around. (Those tiny designer purses are adorable but, really, they hold next to nothing.)

Still, a child is saved.

See? It works everytime, because it stops me again from totally condemning them.



*AngelEyes*


----------



## Outsider

AngelEyes said:


> I'd like to know why they always adopts babies. There are a lot of older children who nobody wants because they're not cute and cuddly anymore.


They're not alone at that. Most people who adopt prefer babies, because that way they can follow their child's development from the beginning, and there is less chance of rejection from the child.

I must say I'm pretty neutral on this matter. I don't think it makes any difference where adoptive parents come from. It's one fewer orphan in the world, and that's usually a good thing.


----------



## Etcetera

Outsider said:


> They're not alone at that. Most people who adopt prefer babies, because that way they can follow their child's development from the beginning, and there is less chance of rejection from the child.


They say it's easier to bring up a child if you've adopted it at an early age. An older child may already acquire some unwelcome ideas.


----------



## Lilla My

Etcetera said:


> I agree with Her Majesty.
> And I'd like to point out that Mr Pitt and Ms Jolie are very popular, so there are people who would like to follow their example. The example they show by adopting kids is a good one.
> I definitely prefer this pair to those celebrities who only drink and drive thei cars at utmost speed.



Well, if people adopt children just to follow their example, it's almost as bad as if they drink for the same reason. Adopting a child is not only "saving" him, it's also to provide him an (happy or whatever word you want to have here) existence.
What will these children think later about having been adopted by celebrities ? Do you think they will never have the same reasonment as us : why did they adopt me, to help me, or to give a good picture of themselves ?

I hope they have good reasons to adopt these chidren, I really hope so, for the sake of the kids.


----------



## TrentinaNE

> Per capita income in Vietnam is less than $700 per year. Just think how many Vietnamese orphans could have been helped by the cost of the first-class airfares, just getting Pitt, Jolie and entourage to and from Vietnam.


You can say this about the vast amounts of money "squandered" by any number of wealthy people on any number of frivolous activities -- why pick on Pitt and Jolie?  Carried to an extreme, we should all be asking ourselves why we spend any money at all on entertainment when the there are people starving in the world. No one of us is going to save everyone from poverty. We all make our choices about how and how much we want to contribute to allievating others' misery.



> If Pitt and Jolie want a cuddly fashion accessory, they can buy a dog.


What a gift to be able to see into others' hearts.


----------



## badgrammar

Hate to be flippant, but really, who gives a flying Walenda about Brangelina???


----------



## AngelEyes

TrentinaNE said:


> What a gift to be able to see into others' hearts.


 
But that's the beauty of this decision. It's wrapped in truly ultruistic goals: to save a helpless child.

You can't fight that action because it's so blindingly wonderful.

I'm still suspicious, though, of their real intentions. You can say that makes me paranoid or negative. It doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Or that their motivations are pure. 

I guess that's what this discussion is for: to allow us to state our opinions.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## ElaineG

TrentinaNE said:


> You can say this about the vast amounts of money "squandered" by any number of wealthy people on any number of frivolous activities -- why pick on Pitt and Jolie? Carried to an extreme, we should all be asking ourselves why we spend any money at all on entertainment when the there are people starving in the world. No one of us is going to save everyone from poverty. We all make our choices about how and how much we want to contribute to allievating others' misery.


 
Thank you, Elisabetta. I agree entirely. The same logic also applies to almost any adoption -- which usually ends up costing thousands of dollars. Obviously, simply donating the money in situ in the Third World would cause those dollars to reach more people. But most families adopt because they want to _raise a child_. I don't think I have to get into why that is appealing or meaningful to people, more so than simply writing a check.

As for telling them they _should_ adopt an older child, I've heard this one myself. But you never hear anyone say to someone who chooses to (can) have a child, why are you selfishly having a baby when you _should_ adopt an older child... I think I'll try that next time someone tells me their pregnant. "What, you just want something cuddly? Why don't you adopt a teenager? There are so many that need homes!"



> I'd kindly disagree on this point: you, all the other foreros and I cannot walk into a country, put a child in our backpack and walk out, but for some reasons related to their richness and celebrity Pitt and Jolie (and Madonna and many others) can.
> More: they also have the irrepressible need to tell the mass media about it.Yesterday 06:46 PM


 
Paul, if you'd read my previous post, you would have seen that I said if there was something that irked me about celebrity adoption, it was that they don't have to deal with the red tape that us mortals do. 

The backpack comment was specfically in response to the charge that people should be adopting Iraqi children, something that is impossible under current Iraqi law.

As for telling the mass media about it,  do celebrities seek out the mass media or vice versa?  Some of both, but at this point, I don't think Brad and Angelina, or Madonna, have much choice in the matter -- their activities will be covered relentlessly regardless of what they do.


----------



## AngelEyes

ElaineG said:


> As for telling the mass media about it, do celebrities seek out the mass media or vice versa? Some of both, but at this point, I don't think Brad and Angelina, or Madonna, have much choice in the matter -- their activities will be covered relentlessly regardless of what they do.


 
Well, when they want to get married in private, they somehow manage to do it. When they want to have plastic surgery in private, they know how to hide until the scars fade.

If they really want the adoption to be private, I think they could do it much more quietly and intimately than they do now.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ElaineG said:


> Paul, if you'd read my previous post, you would have seen that I said if there was something that irked me about celebrity adoption, it was that they don't have to deal with the red tape that us mortals do.
> 
> The backpack comment was specfically in response to the charge that people should be adopting Iraqi children, something that is impossible under current Iraqi law.
> 
> As for telling the mass media about it,  do celebrities seek out the mass media or vice versa?  Some of both, but at this point, I don't think Brad and Angelina, or Madonna, have much choice in the matter -- their activities will be covered relentlessly regardless of what they do.



I'm sorry, Elaine: I didn't read your post carefully enough.
Please don't consider the "I kindly disagree on this point" bit.



AngelEyes said:


> Well, when they want to get married in private, they somehow manage to do it. When they want to have plastic surgery in private, they know how to hide until the scars fade.
> 
> If they really want the adoption to be private, I think they could do it much more quietly and intimately than they do now.
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*



I agree with you.


----------



## cubaMania

Angelina Jolie has functioned as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations refuree agency (UNHCR) since 2001.  Her experiences in this role have changed her profoundly.


> As a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, Angelina uses her status as a superstar to generate media coverage about the plight of refugees and the conditions under which they live. She has traveled widely to remote refugee camps and receiving centers in countries including Tanzania, Namibia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Ecuador. To further raise awareness, she has released her personal journals for select field visits that can be accessed at USA for UNHCR. For her efforts, Angelina has been honored with the Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program Humanitarian Award.


 
Whether she will be a good parent is hard to predict, as it is hard to predict for anyone, whether adoptive or natural parent.


----------



## Poetic Device

I can't see how it is genuine.  I'm sorry, but it looks to me that they just want a manajore of children.


----------



## Keikikoka

Poetic Device said:


> I can't see how it is genuine.  I'm sorry, but it looks to me that they just want a manajore of children.



Why would the adoption of a large number of children be less genuine then the adoption of only one child?


----------



## Poetic Device

It's nice that they are adopting, but if they keep adopting and all they are not going to be able to spend time with the kids.  With them being the celebrities that they are, I can't see how it is possible now.  All they did was take kids and put them with an emotionless nanny probably.  Is that any better?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Poetic Device said:


> It's nice that they are adopting, but if they keep adopting and all they are not going to be able to spend time with the kids. With them being the celebrities that they are, I can't see how it is possible now. All they did was take kids and put them with an emotionless nanny probably. Is that any better?



I really don't think Jolie would.
I find it quite shallow the way people are starting to always see anything remotely good as having a cynical twist for evil person gain involved, I am incredibly cynical about politics, and generally quite a cynical person but even I can see that for adopting an orphan into a family where it has a very good chance to grow and prosper better than not being adopted, is not a bad thing at all.


----------



## Poetic Device

You have a point, yet at the same time I am sorry but I cannot help being skeptical.  When was the last time that you heard of this?  Have you paid attention to the Hollywood History?

Why do people automatically think negatively?  I believe that it is part human nature and partly because that is all that you hear now so it becomes the norm.


----------



## .   1

Fascinatingly judgemental displays.
It is amazing how people just know how everybody else lives.
For one reason or another it seems that many high profile couples do not produce children by playing the beast with two backs so some of these high profile couples adopt a child that has been discarded by a couple who for one reason or another bumped ugly and split leaving a helpless pile of protoplasm for someone else to clean up.

What would be the judgement on these couples if they chose to adopt a clan of Aryan perfection? They could easily buy such a status symbol anywhere. They could even pay Clarabell and Marmaduke to exchange some long chain polymers and have designer babies to order. Tall, blond, blue eyed, athletic, smart as a whip.

They could take the second choice and go to a run of the mill adoption agency and adopt some average kids and be done with it. Live quietly and not be subject to idle gossip about the kids. No wait, that just means that he is gay and she is a sook. How do they win?

Some take the difficult option of adopting kids that nobody wants. 
Kids that will be a significant challenge to raise.
Kids that make some type of positive statement about the humanity of some people.
Kids that would probably be otherwise dead.

These celebrities then get ragged on because it is obvious that the celebrities will not have the time or inclination to raise the children themselves or will have little to no involvement in their lives. 

How the hell could anybody possibly know that?

Celebrities don't have nine to five jobs that take them away from their kids for at least half of each day and probably half the weekend and then the rest of the time available has to be split between sleeping and cleaning and eating and the kids and maybe a little relaxing in the three nanoeconds left over each day.

I expect that multimillionaire celebrities don't spend too much time chained to a sink or walking at the southern end or a northward facing lawnmower or cleaning dunnies or painting ceilings or any of the thousand and ten humdrum tasks that us mugs have to do for ourselves.

I suspect that such wealthy people may have more than a little free time when thay are not working and if they can demand colour coded Smarties I doubt that they would have too much opposition to taking the kids on set with them.

Jolie and Pitt adopt another child. Another day older and another kid not dead.
More power to them and I wish them all the positive karma in the world and I hope that their kids grow up with the same inclusive humanitarian values.

.,,


----------



## Keikikoka

Poetic Device said:


> It's nice that they are adopting, but if they keep adopting and all they are not going to be able to spend time with the kids.  With them being the celebrities that they are, I can't see how it is possible now.  All they did was take kids and put them with an emotionless nanny probably.  Is that any better?



Let's say, hypothetically, that all Angie and Brad do is pick these kids up and then put them with a nanny. Why they are choosing an emotionless nanny is beyond me, but let's say they do that, too. Their lives would still be much better than the lives they were living! It seems people would rather they live starving, diseased, and poverty stricken in understaffed and overcrowded orphanages than occasionally have to be with a nanny while Mom and Dad are at work. To answer your question, even in the worst-case scenario you have presented, the lives of these children would be much better!


----------



## Kajjo

Keikikoka said:


> To answer your question, even in the worst-case scenario you have presented, the lives of these children would be much better!


Of course you are right. I believe all foreros here are quite positive that it's for the good of the children after all. 

However, from my point of view the interesting points of discussion are:

1) Do you think they do it for publicity? 

2) Would it be morally OK if they would do it just because of publicity?

3) Is it OK for you that just because of their celebrity and money they can effortlessly adopt children while other potential parents hit massive obstacles? Thus, do they _abuse_ their celebrity and money or do they _use_ it for the good after all?

Kajjo


----------



## Keikikoka

Kajjo said:


> Of course you are right. I believe all foreros here are quite positive that it's for the good of the children after all.
> 
> However, from my point of view the interesting points of discussion are:
> 
> 1) Do you think they do it for publicity?



I honestly do not think they do it for publicity. Angelina and Brad, simply by being who they are, will never lack media attention. Just buying a bagel will get your average celebrity a spot in the "Celebrities, they're just like us" section in PEOPLE magazine. Adopting a baby for publicity would be overkill, especially for two of the most recognizable figures in modern cinema. 



> 2) Would it be morally OK if they would do it just because of publicity?



Yes, completely. Even if they were not genuinely concerned for the well being of their children, they [the children] are better off. That is always a good thing. 



> 3) Is it OK for you that just because of their celebrity and money they can effortlessly adopt children while other potential parents hit massive obstacles? Thus, do they _abuse_ their celebrity and money or do they _use_ it for the good after all?



I have no way of judging how effortless it is for them to adopt. They may cut through the red tape quicker than others, but it seems like they still have to cut through the red tape. As far as I am concerned, the faster the child can be brought into a better environment, the better.


----------

