I've always considered Jolie an extremely smokin' hottie but I've also usually thought of her as getting as close to being mentally handicapped without actually being declared that. (I also always imagined her as having a really bad patchouli/BO smell to her and that's why she and Brad Pitt get on so well because you know he's just stinky.) But I've also had that slightest bit of respect for her going to countries that don't generally have bathtubs or toilets in every living quarter. Lord love her because I"m sure I could never make it.
Her parenting skills have always been in question for me because of the demands of her line of work and her generally bizarre antics and her highly dysfunctional family. But now comes this from Ms. Jolie:
ANGELINA JOLIE insists adoptive parents are more fit to raise a child than biological parents, because their background and personality is thoroughly scrutinised to see if they're suitable for the challenge. The GIRL, INTERRUPTED actress was put through stringent tests before being granted permission to adopt MADDOX, five, and ZAHARA, one. But when she gave birth to baby girl SHILOH NOUVEL earlier this year (06), nobody investigated her suitability as a mother. She says, "It should be hard to be a parent period. I go through many things to adopt. "I'm finger-printed, I'm checked, I go through home studies. I have to prove I'm a decent citizen; a good human being. "That didn't happen to me when I gave birth, so it's interesting that there's no background check when you bring a child into your home in that way."
That is an aspect of adoption vs bearing children comparison that I've never really thought about. People who want to adopt must PROVE they have the ability and are fit to take a child into their homes. And two morons can bump monkeys and no one ever bothers to ask if they are fit? Does that seem right? I don't think so. It's sounds hypocritical to me.
Now please don't misunderstand. I don't mean for a second that adoptive parents shouldn't be investigated first and face a rigorous process. Yes, they very much should. And I would even go further and say that ALL people who seek to become parents should face an equally rigorous process. For if we as a society will not allow someone to give an orphan a home without the owner of that home having met certain standards, how then can we allow someone to create new children with NO standards having been met?
Is this then a question of property rights? If I build a car in my garage out of parts that I smelt the ore that I dug for myself, molded myself, painted it myself, oiled it myself, tuned it myself, before I can take my creation onto the streets of Memphis, I
should go get a driver's license or risk ticketing. And just because I have the wherewithal to build the car, that in no way implies that I can also drive the car.
By what reasoning does someone who can create a child have more ability to raise a child than someone who cannot create a child or doesn't want to create another child when there are millions starving the world over? The answer is obvious. None.
As always when we visit this subject, I will inject Keanu Reeves' line from Parenthood that says so much:
You know, Miss Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish. But they´ll let any butt-reamin´ asshole be your father.
