@roadkill55446 Said 
Instead of celebrities having natural babies and dealing with pregnancy and all of the emotional and relathionship problems often associated with pregnancy, why not adopt a child who is in a third-world country who is needlisly suffering every day? Rich celebrities would be able to provide them with a great education and anything else they would need because almost all celebrities are filthy rich.
Yes it's not a bad idea....I don't think it should be insisted on though. Starving third world children are not like a dog rescue pound, with respect.
Many of these 3rd world countries are learning to improve their own sustainability with primary industry, education, irrigation etc. They may well survive with international aid and these children often do have existing family of their own who love them dearly.
It's not just the kids that need help but their parents too - and everyone else they know who they leave behind when they are adopted.
I'd be far happier to see celebrities send the money to where it is needed. In most instances, celebrities take 1 child out of the country and adopt them, & spend millions of dollars just raising that child in the lifestyle they themselves are accustomed to.
They may feel they are doing something noble but I think it's obscene actually....why spend $3 million dollars on 1 child when that money could help so many?
May 28, 2009 @ 03:31:03
Adopting is different!
Moderator
