Im thinking..

[palefrost]

Im thinking im gonna adopt one of those african babies.

Everyone else is getting one and i hate to be left out. Im sure there is a limited supply and i dont want them to run out before it gets to trendy.

I hear you can pick out anyone you want. They have them line up and you can pick one out like a puppy!

I want a male brown one. Not to brown though, but brown enough that everyone can see how cool i am and how i help the world. I am a giver....

 

[dong]

Nah, the supply won't ever run out unless everybody adopted more than one. There's like more of them than there is, like, the rest of the world and they'll keep coming, you can be sure of that!

Okay, I stepped from being Simpsons satirical to South Park offensive sometime in there. So seriously now:

Damn sister, that's scathing! Is this anything to do with Madonna, perchance?

 

[palefrost]

LOL. Yeah her and all the jolie and pitts. Come on with this working the celebrity angle and having your publicists announce you are adapting children for the cause. Its self serving!

Give schools and cattle to the country! Teach them skills and help them work the resources of the land. Let them take care of their own before you ship out the children for a "better life". How does this help the country as a whole? Its not a fix!!! Its just a ego stroke.

The people need education!!!! Stop using these poor countries as trendy places to adapt a child a nanny will raise!!!!

 

[dong]

Well I would delineate the pros and the cons, but I suspect the public wouldn't really care that much.

 

[framed]

On the other hand why does it matter if its self serving? Is there any harm in what they're doing? Would you question that the kid will be better off living with some millionare parents in the first world over some african orphanage?

It could well be that they genuinely want children without the hassles of going through pregnancy. (for people who's income is generated entirely by how sexy they are, its not an unreasonable consideration)

From what I understand the Africa approach has become a route to quick parenthood for the non-famous as well, since it doesnt take several years of interviews and paperwork to adopt like a first world baby does. If you want to have a kid and you arent worried about the color, Africa and China are the ways to go.

I'm 100% for backing off on the celebrity-worship culture we've built up, but as long as its here lets be reasonable. Celebrities make all kinds of good and bad decisions just like the rest of the average joe's. It doesn't make sense to scrutinize their decisions any more than your neighbor's.

 

[dong]

I'm 100% for backing off on the celebrity-worship culture we've built up, but as long as its here lets be reasonable. Celebrities make all kinds of good and bad decisions just like the rest of the average joe's. It doesn't make sense to scrutinize their decisions any more than your neighbor's.

Well, by principle, I would agree with you, but we're strictly in a domain of public consideration primarily, which means that by definition the celebrity is going to be scrutinised because they are the center of attention and can wield alot of influence. This goes with the territory.

What I saw as being the positive effects of this is that it brings awareness in an era where most people are terribly ignorant and won't so much as glance at something without an idol to worship present. There can be real benefits, regardless of integrity or genuineness of intention, if the right resources are put in the right place because in a selfish world, nobody is going to care otherwise.

But then of course, the problem as palefrost points out is that adopting will turn into a 'fad', and the social movement will defeat the purpose as people will forget that this is about aid, not being cool. Our awareness of this may make us treat a celebrity who does this slightly unfair, precisely because they're in the public light. But as the conundrum is unavoidable insofar as they are celebrities, what would the redeeming move be? I suggest that it be made clear that the adoption itself be rooted in more fundamental humanitarian causes (like one might say for Angelina Jolie, perhaps). But the media is responsible for ensuring this, and I suspect that they largely fail in this regard in the journalistic pursuit for populist titillation.

 

[vicki2]

I see it as a celebrity bandwagon. If Madonna truly cared about African children, she could have donated what for her is a small amount of money so that the child could stay with his parent and have a decent life, but there wouldn't have been as much publicity in that, would there?

 

[hokeshel]

I agree with vicki2. Furthermore, if they were trying to help, then why don't they adopt some of the kids in this country? Why do thye have to make such a public spectacle of the kids? I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt that they really care, and I am sure to some degree they do but, the problem with adopting a child for "self-serving' reasons is that raising them to be happy and healthy may take a back seat to your motives.

 

[framed]

I don't know, why don’t you do those things? Why is it their inherent responsibility to take up your suggested causes? Maybe they want children, quickly, and saw the opportunity to do that while doing some good. Or maybe they didn't care about doing some good and just wanted children quickly.

I'm also not sure how you can blame them for it turning into a spectacle, I mean those people take a walk in their back yard and its a spectacle - and not at their choice.

Even if you assume the absolute worst, which is that these kids are nothing but intentional publicity stunts that will be 100% unloved, I'm still willing to bet their lives will be better than had they been raised in an African orphanage. Why would you knock that? Even if it turns into a bandwagon its still helping children who would otherwise have a less fortunate lives.

Criticizing people for how they choose to be cheritable seems awfuly petty to me. So they aren't the most efficent they could possibly be in their charity, they maybe even want to get something out of it. Ever take a tax writeoff for a donation? Does or would that make the donation illegitimate? If you volunteer at a soup kitchen more for the company than for helping the homeless does that make it a bad thing? Is it a bad thing if you do it for your public image? Its still feeding people right?

 

[palefrost]

I don't know, why don’t you do those things? Why is it their inherent responsibility to take up your suggested causes? Maybe they want children, quickly, and saw the opportunity to do that while doing some good. Or maybe they didn't care about doing some good and just wanted children quickly.

I'm also not sure how you can blame them for it turning into a spectacle, I mean those people take a walk in their back yard and its a spectacle - and not at their choice.

Even if you assume the absolute worst, which is that these kids are nothing but intentional publicity stunts that will be 100% unloved, I'm still willing to bet their lives will be better than had they been raised in an African orphanage. Why would you knock that? Even if it turns into a bandwagon its still helping children who would otherwise have a less fortunate lives.

Criticizing people for how they choose to be cheritable seems awfuly petty to me. So they aren't the most efficent they could possibly be in their charity, they maybe even want to get something out of it. Ever take a tax writeoff for a donation? Does or would that make the donation illegitimate? If you volunteer at a soup kitchen more for the company than for helping the homeless does that make it a bad thing? Is it a bad thing if you do it for your public image? Its still feeding people right?

Totally dont agree. These celebrities you see in the news every minute and please note its always the same ones. They have publicists who make sure they are in the news. When you hear about one publicists being fired or a new one being hired it means the celebrity didnt like what was said or how the spin was working. Just look at tom cruise if you dont believe me. They know if they generate their name they make more at the box office. Its very much like a game of politics.

Recently one publicists who has control over a number of stars was pissed at NBC for talking about one of his clients in a negative lite so he pulled them all off the today show before sweeps week.

 

[framed]

I agree that celebrities and their agents seek out attention as part of their job. The downside of that is that they have attention no matter what they do good or bad or irrelevant (think mel gibson)

I think the point still stands though that these kids are better off regardless of the new parents motives, so why say its a bad thing.

 

[palefrost]

Essentually it bothers me because the child is a native to that country and uprooting it into a new culture and abandening the problem isnt really a solution to me.

We have tons of homeless children in the USA that could use the same opportunities but i guess they arent exotic enough.

Off a gossip site:

The seemingly never ending saga of Madonna and her new addition continues.
Just after bringing her new baby boy David Banda home you would think Madge would be spending time with the rescued tike. However, instead she headed to the gym to keep her taut figure in shape. While every waking moment can't possibly be dedicated to David, the situation makes one wonder if there truly are underlining motives for the rushed adoption. 3AM also reports that:

"What should have been a quiet, bonding experience with the Malawian baby of her choice, turned into a circus with convoys of 4x4s racing along dirt tracks to the Mission of Hope orphanage where our heroine handed out signed copies of her books."​

You and I both know that maybe food or some Kabbalah water would have been more appropriate. What are the kids going to do with her book? I mean honestly, I love Madonna even with her faux accent but this is just screaming PR stunt.

 

[dong]

Honestly, I've been on the same page as palefrost since a few posts ago on this one. Valuing how the kid is better off is subjective to say in the least, but I really do think the cultural displacement really ought to be called into question.

 

[framed]

I guess I'm getting out of my element here. When I picture "adopting an African baby" I think of those Sally Struthers kids who are living in such poverty that they aren’t really guaranteed to survive it. In that case, I don't think its very subjective to say that their life would be better off in the first world. You can pretty objectively measure satisfaction of basic needs like food clothing and shelter. If its something else and these are kids with a good structure for care in place for them then maybe the advantage isn’t as clear.

I keep hearing about how it would be better to adopt in the states. I just don't buy it. The premise that an American baby is somehow more worthy or more in need of adoption than someone from Africa, or China just doesn't ring true.

I tried to find the data I wanted about the length of the adoption waitlist in the states, but I couldn’t. What I did find though was that (in 2001) 2% of the children adopted out of the public system were under age 1, while 44% of the children adopted from other nations were under age 1. As ages get older those trends reverse. That's pointing to a shortfall of newborns available for adoption in the US, but a surplus of older kids. Its true to say that there are tons of homeless kids in the states, its not so true to say there's tons of newborns. So... if you want a newborn addition to your family, going overseas sounds like the smart move. I found that here by the way, its a good read.

I also found some interesting data about the number of children (ages 1 to 18) eligible for adoption in a few key areas. In the states its 120,000 give or take 10,000 each year. In Asia its 65 million. In Africa its 34 million.

 

[hokeshel]

framed, i think you are reading more into what some people wrote than what what actually there. I said I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Some of these celebrities are clearly making a spectacle out of it. I never suggested that American children are worth more. Why would someone spend the time and money to go to another country and adopt a child? You can do a private adoption in the United States. There are plenty of children, including newborns available. You wouldn't have to go through the red tape and political difficulties. Madonna could have adopted a child here without anyone even knowing, without government interferance and it would have cost less. The child being referred to here has a parent. 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? Just because she is rich doesn't mean that Madonna can give him a better life. If these poeple want to help out so much then why aren't they adopting AIDS children or kids with physical and mental disabilities? 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.