Angelina Jolie is quickly turning into the Mia Farrow of the 21st Century. A collection of kids from every country in Asia, and then some. What she doesn't realize is that this will do major damage do her existing children, as you cannot be a good mother if you are constantly looking for the next adoptee. I think the message to the kids is pretty overt: you're not enough.

(Does this make Brad Woody Allen?)

hmm... I'll be sure to let my mother know that having 6 kids made her a bad parent. Just b/c Angie chooses to save the kids of the world who need homes instead of just adding to the problem doesn't mean she is a bad mother. She seems like a far better mother than anyone else in hollywood.

tigger:

I'm not impugning large families outright: I came from one with five children.

What I am impugning is Jolie's approach. She has two children not yet our ot infancy. Child psychologists will tell you that adding another infant to the mix would be seriously destructive to the self-esteem of both Zahara and Shiloh. Ideally, each needs at least two years during which they are (for lack of a better expression) "King Baby" or "Queen Baby". Bring another infant into the mix before that time and you are going to seriously deplete the time needed for the preceding child to form a stable sense of self.

If Jolie thought to wait a couple of years before adopting this additional child, it would be better for her chldren. And yet her over-riding concern is not for Zahara or Shiloh but for this new, Vietnamese baby. That indicates an unhealthy level of "I must save the world", when in fact she needs to save her own children first.

It's the swift pace by which she adds to her family, and the seeming lack of regard for how an additional child will affect her infant daughters, that I find issue with: not the fact that she wants a larger family than three. Do you honestly think she'll stop at six kids????

ok, we could obviously do this all night but there are SOOOO many families out there where people have kids while they still have kids 2 and under. Not everyone follows every word in those books. After all, for every opinion in raising a child there is another saying the opposite. I've personally never heard anything about leaving a few years between kids and I don't think anyone I know has since they didn't do that. But deciding to have a bunch of children while you are still young and have all the energy to give them all is a good idea. Plain and simple. So is adopting. And, frankly, if saving a vietnamese child means Shiloh or Zahara get a little less attention I'm all for it. ITs a LIFE. SAVED.

Anyway, to each his/her own. That's the beauty of America.

Tigger,

No offense intended, but you obviously don't have children and/or are very young if you have never even heard of an ideal spacing of two years between children. Sure, lots of people don't do that (intentionally or unintentionally). But that you've never even heard of it is surprising.

People are simply not equipped to mentally or emotionally raise three or more infants/toddlers at the same time. It cannot be done well... something is sacrificed and although the mother/father will tell you that THEY are the ones making all the sacrifices (sleep, personal time, etc.) it is truly the children - who NEED one-on-one bonding time with the parents - that suffer. It is not a matter of energy or having help to diaper, bathe, feed, etc. all the children. It is about having enough time and attention for the existing children, the importance of which you seem to dismiss. A person cannot form a strong sense of self if, at a formative age, they are constantly replaced by the newest model who is more demanding of Mom & Dad's time.

Sorry for the run on sentences!

It's true that it's recommended that kids be spaced out about 2 years, so that the older child gets the Mom-Dad attention it wants and needs before a younger, needier child is introduced. Not that a child older than 2 won't get jealous of a new baby, but two years is usually the recommended spacing (especially since a pregnant mom is going to require extra attention, too).

Still, lots of kids are born closer together and turn out just fine, and I imagine Angie and Brad don't have to work 40 hours a week each like the rest of us and have more time to spend with their children. I wouldn't be too hard on them.

All I am trying to stress is 1) having children less than 2 years apart in NO way makes you a bad parent. 2) saving a childs life is more important that spacing out the ages.