What do you think about Madonna and A. Jolie?

Question

What kind of impact do you think they've had on adoption in the U.S.?

Good or bad? Why?

Answer 1

A. Jolie gave a lot of attention to African adoptions.  This had some positive and negative consequences.  Bringing attention to it opened up the possibility to families that had never considered this before.  It also made it "okay" to have a diverse family.  Downsides: Ethiopia is a country that went from doing less than a couple hundred adoptions a year to being flooded with thousands upon thousands of Americans wanting to adopt a baby, just like Angelina.  It's a former communist country with very old adoption laws and has had to make some big adjustments with the sudden popularity of their program.  This also increased the risk of child traffickers and fortunately, the Ethiopian govt is looking very closely at international adoptions to prevent this.  It has resulted in delays and Americans just don't do well with delays.  A. Jolie made it sound as though the adoption process went off without a hitch and Americans can't understand why theirs haven't gone so smoothly.  (BTW, delays are very common, even expected, in international adoptions)

Okay, on to Madonna.  Different situation entirely.  Madonna was able to circumvent the adoption laws in that country, in order to adopt.  Yes, the family was willing.  Yes, it is good that one less child will be impoverished.  But the fact that she changed the laws to suit her (or rather, her money changed the laws), simply opens up the doors for wealthy people with nefarious ideas.  What's to stop a pedophile from throwing money around and leaving with a child?  A precedent was already set.  

So, I can appreciate what A. Jolie did, though there was some unexpected consequences.  I don't agree with what Madonna did at all.  The adoption laws of the home country must be respected.

Correction:In Madonna's case, the willingness of the boy's father was called into question.  Not sure what the official word on the subject ended up.

Answer 2

I hope a good impact. My only concern is that people are more likely to go outside the US to adopt infants than to adopt children within the US. There are so many children who need families here as well. Adoption, no matter where it takes place, is an amazing gift.

Answer 3

I think it's good that Madonna's 'adoption' of a child who wasn't an orphan is showing that not all of these adoptions are on the up and up.  I know a woman in Alabama who adopted 2 children from Ethiopia 2 years ago.  She was told they had no family left.  On the way to the airport to take the children back to the U.S., the worker stopped at a house first.  It turned out to be the children's grandmother who was told they were dead and vice versa.

Guatemala has a moratorium on international adoptions because  they are looking into less than honest practices.  Adoption should not be practiced in dishonest ways, period!

Answer 4

I don't

Answer 5

I'm mixed about it -- sometimes, it seems like they're collecting children from their trips like people collect other souveniours (t-shirts, spoons, bumper stickers, etc).  I also think it's crazy how so many hollywood 'mom's are glorified as working moms like they've got it tough . . . but it's a slew of nannies raising the kids.

On the other hand -- it has brought attention to adoption as a whole but the focus has definitely been on the adoption of kids from foreign countries.  With their resources, why haven't they considered foster adoptions?  Now that would make a much better impression . . . at least for me.

overall, maybe it's better for orphans from foreign countries (if, in fact, they're really orphans i.e. madonna's sham) but worse for kids here in foster care.

Answer 6

I think they have had a positive impact - adoption of homeless 3d world children is now publicly discussed at great length and the stigma of adoption seems to have lessened greatly.

Don't forget Ricky Martin. Instead of being just an aging boy singer, he has come out very strongly against the exploitation of children internationally, especially for children who were being "bought" for sexual abuse.

Answer 7

actually i don't liek to compair the two. angelina doesn't bother me. to me she really wanted to adopt her kids not as a trend but because saving the world is something she is very pationate about. yes her family has almost every race known to man but the main thing that she did that made me see her for who she is was when she stopped talking to her father because of a comment he made about her african daughter. she basically told him that if he can't respect her daughter then he doesn't respect her and she cut him off. if it was just about the money she would have hidden her disagreement with her father and we would still think everyone is one big happy family. madonna she hasn't shown me anything interesting yet other than she's willing to fight to get what she wants. i kinda feel like she's the one that made it a circus and not angelina but they bot get put in the same catagory becasue they are female artists. just like with everything it has to do with the individual not their job, class or color.

Answer 8

I think the jury is still out on Jolie, but Madonna? She KNEW that child's father was still alive AND having reservations about the adoption. She has tons of cash. Why not just hand over a few dollars (heck, $5,000 for have set that boy and his father FOR LIFE) and be done with it. What she did just seems a publicity stunt and smarmy to me.

Answer 9

Well considering that Madonna's "son" is not actually an orphan and that his biological father had no intention of placing him for adoption and clais he was tricked, I think it makes international adoption and Madonna look more than a little shady.  Government officials have been paid off, the little boy's father is still trying to have his voice heard and the adoption is still NOT finalized.  Yep.  Shady.

And for Angelina Jolie's situation...Maddox, not an actual orphan.  The agency that handled his adoption was found guilty of mishandling and stealing babies from Cambodia as well as extorting a ton of cash.  Cambodia actually ceased all US adoptions because of the agency that handled Maddox.  That's not good.

And now it turns out that Zahara is not an orphan either and that officials actually lied to Jolie about Zahara's mother being dead of AIDS when in actuality the woman is alive and quite well.  Yick.

No.  I don't think these celebrity adoptions do much for me except turn my stomach.

Now if the adoptions were actually fair and ethical, I would be fully supportive but in the cases of Angie and "Esther", it's just plain wrong.

Answer 10

I think Angelina is an extremely kind and caring person, and the fact that she adopts children makes me admire her even more.  I think it's GREAT that she is the mommy to all those children, and that she's expecting two more-more to love!!

Madonna...hmmm...I'm not sure what to think about her.  She doesn't seem the "nurturing type"...I thought it was strange that she adopted the little one from Africa.  But, I'm sure she's providing a loving home for him.

Answer 11

Madonna's 'adoption' was kidnapping as far as I'm concerned.  I've read the same about Angelina's adoption of Zahara.  Zahara is NOT a true orphan, she has a mother who's alive, and a grandmother.

I am disgusted that Angelina CHANGED the name of her adopted boy at 3 (!) to Pax--thoughtless and selfish.

They are just the latest to acquire children from all over the world.  Mia Farrow did it 20 years ago...

Answer 12

I try not to think of them.  I think they have done more harm making it look like the lastest "trendy" thing to adopt a child from overseas.

Answer 13

I don't know them so I cannot say I think anything a bout them as people.  As Hollywood personalities, I'd say they are flamboyant and talented.

Have they had an affect on adoption?  Yes, but it is probably mixed.  In one sense, it glamorizes adoption and therefore makes it more appealing to many.  Is that good or bad?  Both.  Perhaps the adoption of some children who may be overlooked, such as older kids, may be influenced.  That is good, as aging out of foster care is mostly not a good thing.  But if adoption is becoming such a public thing, then perhaps it is not respectful to anyone connected to adoption to have to think about being on display.  Adoption is a private decision that parents make for their children, and parents make to have children.  It really doesn't belong in the tabloids.

Answer 14

I don't know the impact they have had but I think Angelina is more sincere and Madonna is more out for publicity. :)

Answer 15

I think they have had an extremely positive impact on adoption.  They are giving people a positive impression of adoption.  It's terribly sad to know about all the children in underdeveloped countries that are malnurished and lacking parents.  It's wonderful that these people can put their fame and money to good use.  They are opening up people's eyes to the adoption world.

Answer 16

I am not so sure about the intentions of Angelina Jolie........but I can tell you Madonna's Malawi adoption of little David was a fake as her english accent.

Answer 17

I don't, personally, know either Madonna, nor Angelina Jolie.

I have no idea whether they are good parents or bad parents, nor what their motivations are in adopting. I can only assume that their motivations are just like the motivations of other people who try to adopt.

I would say, that I hope that all the laws were followed for the countries they adopted from, and that they weren't given a "pass" because they are famous. Other than that, I have no opinion.

I think most people who have adopted did so because they wanted to. I don't know anyone who chose to do so because a celebrity has adopted.

We adopted our kids internationally. It had nothing to do with what either of these two women did. (Our first child was adopted long before either of them even thought about adopting.)

Answer 18

They should focus more on adopting in the US and not third world countries.

Answer 19

I think they glorify adopting and give a false representation of it, or the media does. I don't like the idea of "building rainbow families" or using adoption as a way to build your family.