Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Adoption - Should Fat People Be Allowed to Adopt?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I personally have serious doubts as to the usefulness of BMI as a single indicator towards a person's overall health.
Is your point that you don't think the woman whose experiences are recounted in the OP is actually obese and that BMI is misleading in her case? Or that you agree she's obese but you don't think this tells us anything relevant about the potential for health problems in her future?
It was a general statement, not related to a specific case. I think body composition is often assumed based on BMI, but BMI by itself is, in my opinion as a lay person, limited in its ability to indicate overall individual health.
BMi isn't meant to indicate overall individual health, so I'm not sure what the point is here.
I think that is my point. It seems to be being used as such, or did I read that wrong?
From the information provided in the OP, the decision was based on the risk of future health issues not an assessment of the person's current health. BMI is designed to be used as an indicator of future risk and that appears to be how it was used here.4 -
My understanding is that BMI was designed to be used as an indicator of current body mass for populations.4
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I personally have serious doubts as to the usefulness of BMI as a single indicator towards a person's overall health.
Is your point that you don't think the woman whose experiences are recounted in the OP is actually obese and that BMI is misleading in her case? Or that you agree she's obese but you don't think this tells us anything relevant about the potential for health problems in her future?
It was a general statement, not related to a specific case. I think body composition is often assumed based on BMI, but BMI by itself is, in my opinion as a lay person, limited in its ability to indicate overall individual health.
BMi isn't meant to indicate overall individual health, so I'm not sure what the point is here.
I think that is my point. It seems to be being used as such, or did I read that wrong?
I think when you reach a certain BMI it's probably not unreasonable to state that person is unhealthy. 40+. I think there are very rare cases where this isn't true.
So I both agree that BMI isn't accurate but disagree that it can't be an indicator (at a certain point) of bad health.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I personally have serious doubts as to the usefulness of BMI as a single indicator towards a person's overall health.
Is your point that you don't think the woman whose experiences are recounted in the OP is actually obese and that BMI is misleading in her case? Or that you agree she's obese but you don't think this tells us anything relevant about the potential for health problems in her future?
It was a general statement, not related to a specific case. I think body composition is often assumed based on BMI, but BMI by itself is, in my opinion as a lay person, limited in its ability to indicate overall individual health.
BMi isn't meant to indicate overall individual health, so I'm not sure what the point is here.
I think that is my point. It seems to be being used as such, or did I read that wrong?
I think when you reach a certain BMI it's probably not unreasonable to state that person is unhealthy. 40+. I think there are very rare cases where this isn't true.
So I both agree that BMI isn't accurate but disagree that it can't be an indicator (at a certain point) of bad health.
Fair enough, I can dig it.0 -
-
jseams1234 wrote: »I found this..
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2743016&page=1
... a BMI of 40 is the cutoff
“China announced plans Wednesday to tighten restrictions on adoptions by foreigners. The nation will give last priority to foreign citizens who are older than 50 and ban adoptions to those who are obese, single, disfigured or on antidepressant medication.
Stated bluntly, if you are too fat, you can't adopt a Chinese baby.”
Edit: didn’t see anything about US based adoptions - but I’m doing three things at once this morning and may have missed it.
I honestly think it's more screwed up and ignorant that those on antidepressants are excluded. It's a good thing when a parent takes the medication they need to treat their condition -- would you rather they didn't? Many people on anti-depressants live normal, stable, productive lives and they take their meds to continue living that way. Why single out antidepressants exactly? Unless you just don't understand them or how they work.
My life is far more put together, stable, and capable of supporting a child than a lot of other people I know who have young children right now and I take antidepressants. Most *kitten* parents I know probably SHOULD take some kind of med if only they'd ever acknowledge that something is wrong, they tend to have a lot of un-diagnosed or under-diagnosed issues.13 -
And by "you" I mean whoever wrote this policy...can't edit my post.2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I personally have serious doubts as to the usefulness of BMI as a single indicator towards a person's overall health.
Is your point that you don't think the woman whose experiences are recounted in the OP is actually obese and that BMI is misleading in her case? Or that you agree she's obese but you don't think this tells us anything relevant about the potential for health problems in her future?
It was a general statement, not related to a specific case. I think body composition is often assumed based on BMI, but BMI by itself is, in my opinion as a lay person, limited in its ability to indicate overall individual health.
I think this limit can vanish when we consider magnitude of BMI. A BMI of 30 (obese) is overwhelmingly going to predict negative health markers. Even taking into account factors like composition (almost no one has lean tissue account for more than 25 BMI without anabolics, and that itself is exceedingly rare) and activity level. Even in sumo wrestlers who are highly active, the above 30 BMI tends to predict markers worse than people in the merely overweight (25-30) category.
The adoption rules seem to be about people with a BMI of 40. I just don't see how germane it is to argue that some people at a BMI of 27 that are gearing up for a powerlifting or strongman competition being in better health than a 24 BMI normal weight metabolically obese individual.5 -
-
jseams1234 wrote: »I found this..
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2743016&page=1
... a BMI of 40 is the cutoff
“China announced plans Wednesday to tighten restrictions on adoptions by foreigners. The nation will give last priority to foreign citizens who are older than 50 and ban adoptions to those who are obese, single, disfigured or on antidepressant medication.
Stated bluntly, if you are too fat, you can't adopt a Chinese baby.”
Edit: didn’t see anything about US based adoptions - but I’m doing three things at once this morning and may have missed it.
I honestly think it's more screwed up and ignorant that those on antidepressants are excluded.
It's a close call, but I'm going to go with "disfigured" as the most appalling. They won't let you adopt if you're disfigured. WTF???
8 -
siobhanaoife wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »I found this..
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2743016&page=1
... a BMI of 40 is the cutoff
“China announced plans Wednesday to tighten restrictions on adoptions by foreigners. The nation will give last priority to foreign citizens who are older than 50 and ban adoptions to those who are obese, single, disfigured or on antidepressant medication.
Stated bluntly, if you are too fat, you can't adopt a Chinese baby.”
Edit: didn’t see anything about US based adoptions - but I’m doing three things at once this morning and may have missed it.
I honestly think it's more screwed up and ignorant that those on antidepressants are excluded.
It's a close call, but I'm going to go with "disfigured" as the most appalling. They won't let you adopt if you're disfigured. WTF???
That too! Like...wow, okay, sorry for existing with flaws. Like I can kinda understand if you have a very unstable health condition or one that is poorly managed, but the vast majority of health conditions are manageable and don't typically impede normal daily activities when they are well-managed. Plus, anyone could become sick or injured at any time so what's the point???
I know adoption agencies put on extra scrutiny because they can be sued if they adopt a kid out to an unfit family, but there is such a thing as too much. Kinda reminds me of those animal shelters that refuse to adopt any dogs of any kind out to anyone with kids or anyone who doesn't have a fenced backyard. It's just too much, they sound ignorant and their prejudice is showing through their excuse of "acting in the best interest of their charge".3 -
Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
11 -
ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
Ok. But that chart is like some Pinterest Instagram blog thingy with little basis in reality.
BMI is an indicator of likelihood to develop certain health conditions. Those with a BMI below or above the “healthy” range have a much higher likelihood of developing problems than those within the healthy range.
Although we’re not certain for this specific show, and it seems requirements vary, it seems we’re primarily talking about people with a BMI over 40 being excluded. BMI over 40 is morbid obesity. There’s a significant likelihood that these people already have (or will in the very immediate future) health conditions.
Significant likelihood. Not guaranteed.
In reference to this-a person your height might be excluded from adopting if they weighed 219 pounds or more.
6 -
ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
BMI isn't one single ideal weight for each height - there's a range.
I don't know where you got that graphic from but it's pretty silly.7 -
My understanding is that BMI was designed to be used as an indicator of current body mass for populations.
Roads were paved for bicyclists, now we identify them to drive cars and sometimes maim cyclists. Things change. It's not always for the best, but it's life.
People use BMI as a quick and dirty indicator for people, because it works 99% of the time. Even if your gym is full of ripped bros, there are 7 billion people in the world. Most of them don't exercise more than they have to. Of the small share of people who exercise at all, lots of them run but don't lift, etc. Statistically, across the entire population, BMI gets you in the right ballpark almost always. Remember we're talking statistics over a very large population, we're not just talking bros.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »My understanding is that BMI was designed to be used as an indicator of current body mass for populations.
Roads were paved for bicyclists, now we identify them to drive cars and sometimes maim cyclists. Things change. It's not always for the best, but it's life.
People use BMI as a quick and dirty indicator for people, because it works 99% of the time. Even if your gym is full of ripped bros, there are 7 billion people in the world. Most of them don't exercise more than they have to. Of the small share of people who exercise at all, lots of them run but don't lift, etc. Statistically, across the entire population, BMI gets you in the right ballpark almost always. Remember we're talking statistics over a very large population, we're not just talking bros.
Actually, we are talking about a single individual wanting to adopt, but I concede that the degree to which they have set the limit adequately compensates for the limits of BMI as applied to an individual.0 -
ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.4 -
ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
I think it's accurate for males...well except for that fact that they don't designate a specific weight as ideal (as someone said earlier). 118 for a 5'2" male would be right in the middle of healthy.
0 -
ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
I think it accurate for males...well except for that fact that they don't designate a specific weight as ideal (as someone said earlier).
Fair point, I was just looking at the female side. I guess they're saying the ladies need to be underweight - maybe it's for a casting call
11 -
NorthCascades wrote: »My understanding is that BMI was designed to be used as an indicator of current body mass for populations.
Roads were paved for bicyclists, now we identify them to drive cars and sometimes maim cyclists. Things change. It's not always for the best, but it's life.
People use BMI as a quick and dirty indicator for people, because it works 99% of the time. Even if your gym is full of ripped bros, there are 7 billion people in the world. Most of them don't exercise more than they have to. Of the small share of people who exercise at all, lots of them run but don't lift, etc. Statistically, across the entire population, BMI gets you in the right ballpark almost always. Remember we're talking statistics over a very large population, we're not just talking bros.
Actually, we are talking about a single individual wanting to adopt, but I concede that the degree to which they have set the limit adequately compensates for the limits of BMI as applied to an individual.
So in the case of this one individual, did BMI get it wrong, or had this whole thing been a waste of time?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »My understanding is that BMI was designed to be used as an indicator of current body mass for populations.
Roads were paved for bicyclists, now we identify them to drive cars and sometimes maim cyclists. Things change. It's not always for the best, but it's life.
People use BMI as a quick and dirty indicator for people, because it works 99% of the time. Even if your gym is full of ripped bros, there are 7 billion people in the world. Most of them don't exercise more than they have to. Of the small share of people who exercise at all, lots of them run but don't lift, etc. Statistically, across the entire population, BMI gets you in the right ballpark almost always. Remember we're talking statistics over a very large population, we're not just talking bros.
Actually, we are talking about a single individual wanting to adopt, but I concede that the degree to which they have set the limit adequately compensates for the limits of BMI as applied to an individual.
So in the case of this one individual, did BMI get it wrong, or had this whole thing been a waste of time?
You guys are the ones who keep bringing it up. I said in my reply to you:
If they had chosen to set the limit in the "Overweight" range, I think they would have gotten it wrong a significant number of times...if it was used as the only indicator.I concede that the degree to which they have set the limit adequately compensates for the limits of BMI as applied to an individual.0 -
The weight of a person who is willingly ready to take love and responsibility of a child who needs a parent in their life, should never be an issue.
For me personally, I find this as offensive as people who say gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt.
My dad is overweight, but it's not his fault that I got the size I did, it's the fact that a flu virus which attacked my sister's heart when she was 18, causing her to contract Dilated Cardiomyopathy and had a heart attack, then passed away in 2015 - my parents had a lot of time that they needed to be at the hospital with her so during my teenage years, I would binge at because I was obviously scared thinking daily "my sister is dying" and it didn't help the fact that the people at school bullying me, who found out from me talking to a teacher that my sister was in the condition, kept asking me daily "is she dead yet? I hope she dies and you feel like s***t".15 -
According to this chart, I'm obese in both my before and after pics. I'm 215# in the after pic. I'm 5'11" in both pictures. Probably somewhere just under 280 in the before photo, just inside the Obese region of the chart.
I know, N=1 here. But such charts don't consider build. I do have a large chest, 49-50" and short legs, 29" inseam. Leaves a bit more in middle.
I'd buy overweight, as I could probably lose another 20# Can see the makings of my 6 pack if I took off my shirt, but still have some love handles to lose. The "fat shirt" is very loose on my in the after photo. It's an XLT and I'm now wearing LT, when they offer enough room in the chest.
But not sure I'd buy obese in the after photo.
FWIW
6 -
-
Weight should not be a consideration unless it interferes with being able to care for the child. The child should NOT have to care for the parents. If parents become disabled for some reason and their minor children are put in the position to provide "some" care for their parents, that is different! BUT, to be adopted by parents who themselves need care such as an extremely obese person is ridiculous. I think it would be abusive to that child. No way should they be allowed to adopt. I realize there are definitely some underlying issues when people get so big they are bedridden BUT it is disgusting!! Would YOU want to be in their home day in day out...imagine a child being exposed to that environment. They cannot even care for themselves let alone a child...can they provide love? In a limited way because they don't even love themselves. You cannot give what you do not have!!
SO, should a "fat" person be able to adopt...depends on how fat they are.
What about people who are extremely thin? Do they discriminate assuming an extremely thin person MUST have an eating disorder & wouldn't be a good role model for the child...etc etc etc. The bottom line should be can this person provide the physical, emotional, mental needs of a child....if they cannot walk or hardly walk or bathe themselves, then NO they likely cannot provide the care a child needs regardless of whether it is a toddler or a teen.7 -
My sister struggles with fertility. They are looking at Foster to Adopt. She's obese but would make a better mom than most. That's horse hocky.0
-
Why the hell not??!
Just because someone is fat does not mean they'd not be a good parent - far from it in most cases actually...1 -
ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
But that's not BMI. I don't know what the heck it is, but for the heights that I'm familiar with, those "ideal" weights would be classified underweight by BMI.
For a 5'7" female, it's smack bang in the middle of the healthy BMI range. It's my current target (gotta start somewhere).0 -
Knowing that someone was rejected from adopting due to their weight upsets me greatly. It makes absolutely no sense to me. "Shortened expected life span" is not a good reason to refuse to let someone adopt, unless there is overwhelming evidence that they more than likely will die before the child is 18. Obesity alone is not "evidence" that someone will die within the next 18 years. Look at me, I've been in that obese category for about that many years and there's no reason for me to think I'm going to die soon. My doctor has remarked that I am actually incredibly healthy despite my weight.
There are two more things to consider:
1. An obese parent can lose weight within the next 18 years.
2. A skinny parent can gain weight within the next 18 years.
0 -
Some places write adoption laws as if there's an overwhelming amount of people willing to adopt just a few kids in need of homes, when in reality it is the opposite. Everywhere in the world has way more children that need homes than those who are willing to provide them. Unless someone has health conditions (and being obese ain't it) that would greatly interfere with their ability to adequately raise the child, they should be encouraged, not denied.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions