It’s taken months, but Kim has finally made moves to rebuild her life her own way — which means exploring her options for adopting as a single parent without delay.
She would like to adopt a baby from Armenia.
~ OK! staff reporting on socialite Kim Kardashian’s consideration of adopting a child overseas as a single mother, OK Magazine, May 3
[Photo Credit: CeleBuzz]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Baby as accessory. It’s not a purse, it’s a human being!
Kim’s a media w***e, plain and simple. She is one of the most selfish and self-absorbed celebrities around and for what? What has she done but helped to create a clothing empire, a cable TV program about their silly lives, and a nasty sex tape. Those are her areas of expertise, using people for her satisfaction and dressing provocatively. Like the above comment, a baby would just be an accessory to this shallow person’s life who knows nothing about what it is to truly love and sacrifice for another. LL
OK! Magazine is not a credible source, though. They get “called” on it all the time, so this story is right up there with “Jennifer Aniston is pregnant!” which they’ve been “reporting” for two or three years now.
Ummm
she looks way too much like MJ in that photo. Eerie.
Babies need dads. Don’t deny them one on purpose!
Mary Ann, wouldn’t you argue it’s better for a baby to be in a home with one loving parent rather than an orphanage with no loving parents?
So you guys would prefer that babies stay in third world orphanages rather than be adopted to a family that doesn’t fit into your ideal? Goodness gracious, the hypocrisy.
I went to an adoption seminar awhile ago and newborns are in such short supply that birth mothers can pick and choose the families they want to adopt their children. Most want straight, married couples in their late twenties or early thirties (I’m not trying to be bigoted, this is what the adoption counselor told me). Being single and older I would have to adopt through a public agency. But it seems that celebrity single women get babies at the drop of a hat. What’s going on here?
Elizabeth, no one said that they think babies should stay in orphanages, just that Kim Kardashian doesn’t seem like she would be a caring parent — but you never know.
E & E, would you rather a child in need of adoption is placed with a mother and father (to replace the mother and father she lost) or Kim K., that’s what I’m saying. Kim can buy lots of things- she shouldn’t be able to buy children. I think that’s the reason celebs seem to be able to adopt more easily- more funds. On the case of K, she should know that all the $ can’t replace a dad. But celebs often put their own emotional needs before children. Nothing new.
As to children in orphanages, it’s sad, of course. I thought abortion was supposed to solve all that?
Nobody said anything about not wanting babies -or CHILDREN for that matter- to be adopted rather than being in orphanages, Elizabeth.
Holy moly, batman, if Kim must go outside the US does that mean that there might not be “tons of babies that need homes”? Could that be confirmation that we kill them faster than they can be adopted?? Or does it mean that wealthy American celebrities just plain don’t like American babies?? Gosh, abortion advocates, you might have to do a little thinking on this subject and see what you can work out. ;>)
My my, this is quite the dilemma huh? What would you rather have? Allow abortion, or allow a kardashian to adopt a baby? Prolife heads must be spinning!!!!
No, our heads are screwed on right. Let the babies live and give them the best life they can have.
Jake, you’re acting like they are separate problems. This idea that children are disposable ‘things’ that can be killed at whim and only have worth or merit if the mother so chooses is what fuels (note I didn’t say ‘creates’) the ‘children as accessories’ problem, just ike thinking people of darker skin were animalistic fueled slavery. Without the underlying problem, the latter exists in a much smaller realm. If we as a society recognized all human beings were unique ‘persons’ afforded with the same degree of worth, then there wouldn’t be an explosion of egomaniacs looking at kids as a fashion statement, something to make *them* feel better, or otherwise as an accessory to an adult’s life as opposed their own which deserves to be nurtured as only an adult can.
(Please note, I have no idea, realistically, who this woman is. The most I’ve read about her comes from *this* site, from which I gather she’s known as some sort of reality star famous for being famous with some sisters. So I have no idea how good or bad this specific woman would end up being for a child. But I do know anyone who seeks to have a child to ‘fix’ their life *is* viewing said child as an accessory to *their* life as opposed to the child’s own.)