Monday, January 08, 2007
Adopting: Good Deed or Self Aggrandizing?
| Not so many years ago, in Ireland, when an illegitimate baby was adopted, villagers would cluster around his new home praying for the soul of the poor little bastard stained with sin. In the West generally, adoption has widely been considered a last resort for couples unable to conceive, often after expensive attempts at IVF. But this year, an adopted baby became the family accessory du jour: not the old kind of adoption, but elective adoption as a political and ideological fashion statement. Not only Madonna — whose swoop on a Malawi orphanage caused such a furore — but other high-profile celebrities have been busy adopting from across the world: Angelina Jolie from Cambodia and Ethiopia, Ewan McGregor from Mongolia, and Meg Ryan from China. Sharon Stone, Calista Flockhart, Michelle Pfeiffer and Nicole Kidman have all adopted within America. US overseas adoption rates skyrocketed after Angelina Jolie adopted her two, and last month she was rated “best celebrity mum in the world” in an American TV poll. Praised for bringing up her kids as “global citizens”, Jolie has said she would like both to have more babies and adopt more, thus producing, as one wry observer put it, “An achingly cool rainbow family perfect for a Benetton ad.” As we know, motherhood is the new black, and Africa is very now — a focus for celebrity activism from Gwyneth Paltrow’s Aids ads to Bono’s debt-reduction campaign — so what better way to attract the world’s attention than for Madonna to rescue little David Banda from an assuredly bleak future? Fame is the perfume of heroic deeds, according to Socrates, and cynics note that adopting a poor black baby neatly proclaims a celebrity’s maternal, compassionate and cosmopolitan credentials in one poignant little package. Then when they get home there are staff. They make adoption seem easy when really it is fraught with expense, bureaucracy and potential disaster, those sweet babies turning into troubled teenagers who feel they don’t quite belong anywhere. Still, an image of Brad Pitt with little Ethiopian Zahara in his arms is a far more potent symbol than cautionary tales about the pitfalls of inter-country adoption. Hats off, then, to Emma Thompson who three years ago quietly adopted Tindy, a 16-year-old refugee from Rwanda. He was alone and friendless in London and she invited him for Christmas; he slowly became part of the family. Tindy is now 20 and studying politics. “He calls me mum,” says Thompson. “I am so proud of him.” ©The Times |
How about Mia Farrow who did it way before it was trendy?
Better still, how about Oprah Winfrey who does charitable work without taking home trophies?
In Jewish law there are eight levels of doing good:
1. The highest level of charity is for one to make it possible for an indigent not to need the help of others.
2. The second level of charity is where the benefactor does not know the identity of the recipient and the beneficiary does not know who the benefactor is.
3. The third level of charity is where the benefactor knows who is receiving the money, but the beneficiary of the money does not know the identity of the benefactor.
4. The fourth level of giving charity is when the benefactor does not know who the recipient is, yet the indigent knows the benefactor's identity.
5. The fifth level is where one gives to an indigent prior to his asking for help, this being less embarrassing.
6. The sixth level is where one gives the indigent what he needs only after he has requested help.
7. The seventh level is where one gives an indigent some of what he needs, yet he gives it with a happy countenance, making the poor person feel good.
8. The eighth level is where one gives money to the poor, yet does so with a heavy heart. Nevertheless, it is still considered charity since the poor are unaware of the donor's negative attitude. (One who dispenses charity but openly demonstrates his displeasure in giving, loses the merit of the goo deed.)
Where does adoption fit as an act of charity?
