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
-
Again, no one is denying obese people the opportunity to adopt foster children. The show involved a morbidly obese woman who is single trying to adopt a baby being given up by its mother from a foreign country.8
-
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »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).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
0 -
So would I, because at 5'2, weighing 110lbs, we'd have a BMI of 20.1, which is very low. The problem isn't BMI, the problem is this chart is broken.ginagurl79 wrote: »Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110.
Speaking for myself only, I have a medium frame so that low in the range wouldn't work for me. The 18.5-20 zone is there for people who have petite frames.
2 -
I weighed 300 pounds when I adopted three beautiful girls. My weight is steading coming off and the girls are growing up like weeds.13
-
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »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).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
3 -
jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »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).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »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).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.0 -
There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.1
-
Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
Did this person want to adopt a child? I don't know if we have to worry that people are lining up to adopt when they can't even physically care for children without knowing that this problem actually exists.4 -
Edit - delete, cannot read tables today, DOH!
1 -
I don't think the designer is doing anything that sophisticated. Notice how it's 5lbs per inch for women, and 6lbs per inch for men. There is a particular 'rule' that floats around that women's ideal weight can be calculated by allowing 100 pounds for the first 5 feet of height and then adding 5 pounds for every additional inch. There's a version for men, and I'd guess that's it on the left. As covered, the model breaks down severely when you try and extend to women under 5 foot, and the creator is a complete muppet to not have double-checked before subtracting 5lbs per inch for heights under 5 foot.magnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »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).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.
If you're interested in seeing BMI calculations aimed to adjust for humans being 3-dimensional, go to ---> https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/does-my-bmi-look-big
3 -
Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
On the other hand if you were responsible for placing a child for adoption and had a choice of potential parents wouldn't you choose the parents with the better chance of a long and healthy life? The needs of the child are more important than the wants of the parents.
Often the reality of adoption is that the number of potential adopters is far greater than the number of children available for adoption.
(Not the case for harder to place children though - sadly.)
The "orphanage" part isn't quite accurate either, neither of my adopted children were orphans. The reasons for children needing to be adopted are many and varied.8 -
Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
On the other hand if you were responsible for placing a child for adoption and had a choice of potential parents wouldn't you choose the parents with the better chance of a long and healthy life? The needs of the child are more important than the wants of the parents.
Often the reality of adoption is that the number of potential adopters is far greater than the number of children available for adoption.
(Not the case for harder to place children though - sadly.)
The "orphanage" part isn't quite accurate either, neither of my adopted children were orphans. The reasons for children needing to be adopted are many and varied.
I think it's that the number of *babies* is much lower than the number of potential adopters. For older children or children with special needs, I frequently see outreach campaigns encouraging people to consider adopting them. Same for children who may not be up for adoption but may need long term foster care.
0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I don't think the designer is doing anything that sophisticated. Notice how it's 5lbs per inch for women, and 6lbs per inch for men. There is a particular 'rule' that floats around that women's ideal weight can be calculated by allowing 100 pounds for the first 5 feet of height and then adding 5 pounds for every additional inch. There's a version for men, and I'd guess that's it on the left. As covered, the model breaks down severely when you try and extend to women under 5 foot, and the creator is a complete muppet to not have double-checked before subtracting 5lbs per inch for heights under 5 foot.magnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »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).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.
If you're interested in seeing BMI calculations aimed to adjust for humans being 3-dimensional, go to ---> https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/does-my-bmi-look-big
Sorry, didn't look over the whole chart. Yeah, +5 and +6 per inch seems to be the rule of thumb used.
The first calculator seems odd in that it doesn't really document what it does, but looking at the javascript, what it does is amounts to normal BMI calculation *1.3/(height/100)^(1/2).
It does put a height of 5' at a weight range of 90.96 to 121.6,
4'11" at 86.25 to 116.6
4'10" at 82.65 to 111.7.
So by the new BMI calc, the weights shown wouldn't be ridiculous.1 -
Yeah, I'm afraid you have to look elsewhere for an explanation behind the calculator. This is the reasoning for it, including the letter that was the initial impetus for it. http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi.htmlmagnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I don't think the designer is doing anything that sophisticated. Notice how it's 5lbs per inch for women, and 6lbs per inch for men. There is a particular 'rule' that floats around that women's ideal weight can be calculated by allowing 100 pounds for the first 5 feet of height and then adding 5 pounds for every additional inch. There's a version for men, and I'd guess that's it on the left. As covered, the model breaks down severely when you try and extend to women under 5 foot, and the creator is a complete muppet to not have double-checked before subtracting 5lbs per inch for heights under 5 foot.magnusthenerd wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »jseams1234 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
It might be okay for 5'7", but for those of shorter stature, it is seriously borked.euronorris wrote: »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).
For example, normal weight (BMI 18.5 to 25) for women 4'11 tall is actually 91-118lbs, and that chart specifies to aim for underneath that!
Fricking hell.
Table of weight ranges here: https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/quick-guides/what-is-a-healthy-weight
Huh?
Typo. That should be 4 foot 10.
P.S. the 18.5-25 range for women 4 foot 11 tall is 94 to 123 lbs. As you can see, that piece of nonsense says they should all ideally weigh 95lbs. Gah.
It seems the chart could be trying to correct for BMI having an issue with using a squared measurement, but people are kind of 3 dimensional - not that a BMI based on cubing height would scale right either.
The chart also puts a 6'3" at 24.5 BMI, just at the edge of overweight, which would go with using a not perfectly squared height approached.
If you're interested in seeing BMI calculations aimed to adjust for humans being 3-dimensional, go to ---> https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/trefethen/bmi_calc.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/does-my-bmi-look-big
Sorry, didn't look over the whole chart. Yeah, +5 and +6 per inch seems to be the rule of thumb used.
The first calculator seems odd in that it doesn't really document what it does, but looking at the javascript, what it does is amounts to normal BMI calculation *1.3/(height/100)^(1/2).
It does put a height of 5' at a weight range of 90.96 to 121.6,
4'11" at 86.25 to 116.6
4'10" at 82.65 to 111.7.
So by the new BMI calc, the weights shown wouldn't be ridiculous.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Laura48593 wrote: »There was recently a 29 year old who passed away...he was the star of my 600 lb life. What if he had adopted a baby a few years earlier? Or similarly, would he have been able to get up and even care for the baby? I don’t know, it depends on how “fat” the person is. I feel like people who are in the 200 lb range are plenty capable of caring for a child. But in that case it’s more of a concern about life span and heart attacks and what kind of example you set. But do you really want to make someone grow up in an orphanage just because you are afraid they may have a “fat” parent? I think not. 600 lbs is too much. But if you can walk and carry and get on the floor with your child, it is perfectly fine.
On the other hand if you were responsible for placing a child for adoption and had a choice of potential parents wouldn't you choose the parents with the better chance of a long and healthy life? The needs of the child are more important than the wants of the parents.
Often the reality of adoption is that the number of potential adopters is far greater than the number of children available for adoption.
(Not the case for harder to place children though - sadly.)
The "orphanage" part isn't quite accurate either, neither of my adopted children were orphans. The reasons for children needing to be adopted are many and varied.
I think it's that the number of *babies* is much lower than the number of potential adopters. For older children or children with special needs, I frequently see outreach campaigns encouraging people to consider adopting them. Same for children who may not be up for adoption but may need long term foster care.
Indeed.
It's why the simplistic "should fat people be allowed to adopt" isn't a great question or one that can have a universal answer.
1 -
When we adopted our son 7 years ago, I wore a size 4 pants and my husband was a healthy 25 year old. Now I wear a size 20 (and am working very hard to lose it!) and my husband is nearly disabled from adult onset scoliosis. Life happens! Our three sons are all healthy weights. I may struggle but I make sure they understand nutrition and make mostly healthy decisions! My son’s birth parents were addicted to heroin and put his life in danger. I’m sorry, but I’d rather have any of my kids raised by people who are obese and lioving and smart and kind, than have some other challenges.9
-
The only thing I can think about is an episode of my 600lb life where a little boy had to take care of his mother. He was barely as tall as the washer and dryer and he was the one doing the cleaning and cooking... I was afraid he'd hurt himself getting stuck in the washing machine. He was so small.4
-
The only thing I can think about is an episode of my 600lb life where a little boy had to take care of his mother. He was barely as tall as the washer and dryer and he was the one doing the cleaning and cooking... I was afraid he'd hurt himself getting stuck in the washing machine. He was so small.
It should be understood that one needn't be 600 lbs or an overly lazy, selfish person to be overweight or even obese.7 -
No7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 907 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions