An actor who thinks beyond himself – is it me, or is that a rare trait in actors? Perhaps it’s the need to be so internalized in their acting that creates a myopic sense of self and world.
There are moral issues to be considered and discussed, a dialogue started about more than happiness for one side of the triad – I’m continually pulled by the issue: “Is adoption about finding families for babies or finding babies for families?” (a simple change of syntax, yet with very different meanings)
That’s awesome that they’ve helped raised millions of Euros (don’t know what that is in dollars) over the past ten years. But, I’d like to know what has translated into in terms of real, concrete help for the people of Mozambique. Is it helping to feed, clothe, guide, educate and prevent/treat disease in each of those 800,000 orphans effectively?
I think most celebrities are full of it. Sure he’s doing good, but I don’t interpret this statement, etc. as being so noble:
“While visiting HIV-stricken children in Mozambique for Unicef, Liam – a dad-of-two – said he thought about saving an orphaned child from poverty.”
He goes on to say that he thought twice about taking a child out of his/her culture. Or, was the truth that he was really just scared senseless of adopting one of these HIV+ kids? I’m sorry, but the latter just makes more sense to me intuitively. I don’t think many people are equipped to adopt an HIV+ child, and I don’t believe anyone who says they would adopt an HIV+ child until they’ve put their money where their mouth is.
The term “Aids Orphan” doesn’t necessarily mean the child has Aids, but that they are an orphan because of Aids. One or both of the parents could have contracted Aids after the child was born, so the child could be free of the disease. That doesn’t mean they would be healthy, though. Hep B, scabies, rickets, malnourished, giardhia, tuberculosis, and a whole plethora of other illnesses that could affect the children would still be scary to someone who wasn’t willing or prepared to take on those issues.
I don’t think he’s willing to risk the criticism that often comes from adopting internationally or trans-racially. But what his issues truly are is unclear to me… he didn’t elucidate.
In his words, “It’s like, I dunno, it’s a delicate issue.”
I’ve always liked him as an actor. I don’t know him personally so I’m not going to speculate what good or harm (or lack of action) he’s done so far. I guess I wouldn’t know for sure whether he’s making excuses because he doesn’t want to adopt an HIV orphan.
I guess I do respect the fact that he is making statement regarding international adoption in general – whether the orphan is indeed HIV postive or not, doesn’t negate the fact that he/she will be removed from his/her culture and biological roots if someone were to adopt internationally.
Harlow's Monkey 
An actor who thinks beyond himself – is it me, or is that a rare trait in actors? Perhaps it’s the need to be so internalized in their acting that creates a myopic sense of self and world.
There are moral issues to be considered and discussed, a dialogue started about more than happiness for one side of the triad – I’m continually pulled by the issue: “Is adoption about finding families for babies or finding babies for families?” (a simple change of syntax, yet with very different meanings)
Wow, I had no idea Liam was involved in this. Thanks for the tip. Great site! I migrated via Rachel’s Tavern.
That’s awesome that they’ve helped raised millions of Euros (don’t know what that is in dollars) over the past ten years. But, I’d like to know what has translated into in terms of real, concrete help for the people of Mozambique. Is it helping to feed, clothe, guide, educate and prevent/treat disease in each of those 800,000 orphans effectively?
I think most celebrities are full of it. Sure he’s doing good, but I don’t interpret this statement, etc. as being so noble:
“While visiting HIV-stricken children in Mozambique for Unicef, Liam – a dad-of-two – said he thought about saving an orphaned child from poverty.”
He goes on to say that he thought twice about taking a child out of his/her culture. Or, was the truth that he was really just scared senseless of adopting one of these HIV+ kids? I’m sorry, but the latter just makes more sense to me intuitively. I don’t think many people are equipped to adopt an HIV+ child, and I don’t believe anyone who says they would adopt an HIV+ child until they’ve put their money where their mouth is.
The term “Aids Orphan” doesn’t necessarily mean the child has Aids, but that they are an orphan because of Aids. One or both of the parents could have contracted Aids after the child was born, so the child could be free of the disease. That doesn’t mean they would be healthy, though. Hep B, scabies, rickets, malnourished, giardhia, tuberculosis, and a whole plethora of other illnesses that could affect the children would still be scary to someone who wasn’t willing or prepared to take on those issues.
I don’t think he’s willing to risk the criticism that often comes from adopting internationally or trans-racially. But what his issues truly are is unclear to me… he didn’t elucidate.
In his words, “It’s like, I dunno, it’s a delicate issue.”
I’ve always liked him as an actor. I don’t know him personally so I’m not going to speculate what good or harm (or lack of action) he’s done so far. I guess I wouldn’t know for sure whether he’s making excuses because he doesn’t want to adopt an HIV orphan.
I guess I do respect the fact that he is making statement regarding international adoption in general – whether the orphan is indeed HIV postive or not, doesn’t negate the fact that he/she will be removed from his/her culture and biological roots if someone were to adopt internationally.