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
-
Of course it should be a concern. Obesity is an epidemic and self-inflicted! I'm sympathetic to those who are affected by obesity, but the chances of the child learning good healthy eating habits are drastically reduced, it would also be heart breaking for the child to then lose one or both of the adoptive parents early because of it. Obesity leads to a multitude of other health problems including heart disease and diabetes, it would surely have a emotional and psychological affect to any child living in an environment where illness could be constantly present. I understand that it would not always be the case but I do think that as being overweight or obese is reversible and/or preventable it is wise to take potential parents weight and it's possible physical affects into consideration. It's nothing to do with how people look, it's about how it impacts on their ability to care for a child in the most healthy way possible.11
-
No, I don’t think they should. It’s not in the children’s best interests.11
-
MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »No, I don’t think they should. It’s not in the children’s best interests.
How so?
I dare say that having parents is in the children's best interest and that having parents at all is more important than having slim parents.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »No, I don’t think they should. It’s not in the children’s best interests.
How so?
I dare say that having parents is in the children's best interest and that having parents at all is more important than having slim parents.
But what it the choice isn't a binary choice between fat parents and no parents?
Maybe the choice is between fat (less healthy) parents or normal weight (more healthy) parents?1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »No, I don’t think they should. It’s not in the children’s best interests.
How so?
I dare say that having parents is in the children's best interest and that having parents at all is more important than having slim parents.
But what it the choice isn't a binary choice between fat parents and no parents?
Maybe the choice is between fat (less healthy) parents or normal weight (more healthy) parents?
Assuming all other factors of consideration are the same, normal weight parents should be chosen. In the case of a tie, it's time to start considering all other possible disqualifications, just as an indecisive hiring manager who has to choose between two equally qualified recent graduates may choose the person who has a slightly higher GPA on paper.
For OP: To me, it's not really about being fat as measured by BMI or other measurements; it's more about being able to move enough to properly care for a child. My dad has always been either a normal weight or overweight, and my mom's BMI has always been between 31 and 40. If I had the choice between my family and foster care, I'd choose my family. Both of my parents were always healthy enough to cook food, take my siblings and I to free, local attractions whenever they both had the day off, and do other normal family stuff. They're paycheck-to-paycheck working-class adults, and I've never gone hungry or been homeless. Their worst parenting errors are that they kept us too sheltered and didn't teach us proper nutrition information, but those are not traumatic mistakes. Care under stable adults all throughout my formative years has allowed me to stay steady into adulthood.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »No, I don’t think they should. It’s not in the children’s best interests.
How so?
I dare say that having parents is in the children's best interest and that having parents at all is more important than having slim parents.
But what it the choice isn't a binary choice between fat parents and no parents?
Maybe the choice is between fat (less healthy) parents or normal weight (more healthy) parents?
Assuming all other factors of consideration are the same, normal weight parents should be chosen. In the case of a tie, it's time to start considering all other possible disqualifications, just as an indecisive hiring manager who has to choose between two equally qualified recent graduates may choose the person who has a slightly higher GPA on paper.
For OP: To me, it's not really about being fat as measured by BMI or other measurements; it's more about being able to move enough to properly care for a child. My dad has always been either a normal weight or overweight, and my mom's BMI has always been between 31 and 40. If I had the choice between my family and foster care, I'd choose my family. Both of my parents were always healthy enough to cook food, take my siblings and I to free, local attractions whenever they both had the day off, and do other normal family stuff. They're paycheck-to-paycheck working-class adults, and I've never gone hungry or been homeless. Their worst parenting errors are that they kept us too sheltered and didn't teach us proper nutrition information, but those are not traumatic mistakes. Care under stable adults all throughout my formative years has allowed me to stay steady into adulthood.
The bold is exactly my point.
My wife and I were just one of ten couples fully vetted and approved by our adoption agency and waiting / hoping to adopt specifically young children or babies.
We wouldn't have been offered the baby who became my son if we hadn't recently moved house as our previous house was deemed too close to the birth parents and grandparents.
All ten couples would have had pros and cons. Health risks were, and should be, part of those pros and cons.1 -
Do you note the tension between the bolded parts?lucymaeburridge wrote: »Of course it should be a concern. Obesity is an epidemic and self-inflicted! I'm sympathetic to those who are affected by obesity, but the chances of the child learning good healthy eating habits are drastically reduced, it would also be heart breaking for the child to then lose one or both of the adoptive parents early because of it.
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »No, I don’t think they should. It’s not in the children’s best interests.
How so?
I dare say that having parents is in the children's best interest and that having parents at all is more important than having slim parents.
But what it the choice isn't a binary choice between fat parents and no parents?
Maybe the choice is between fat (less healthy) parents or normal weight (more healthy) parents?
Assuming all other factors of consideration are the same, normal weight parents should be chosen. In the case of a tie, it's time to start considering all other possible disqualifications, just as an indecisive hiring manager who has to choose between two equally qualified recent graduates may choose the person who has a slightly higher GPA on paper.
For OP: To me, it's not really about being fat as measured by BMI or other measurements; it's more about being able to move enough to properly care for a child. My dad has always been either a normal weight or overweight, and my mom's BMI has always been between 31 and 40. If I had the choice between my family and foster care, I'd choose my family. Both of my parents were always healthy enough to cook food, take my siblings and I to free, local attractions whenever they both had the day off, and do other normal family stuff. They're paycheck-to-paycheck working-class adults, and I've never gone hungry or been homeless. Their worst parenting errors are that they kept us too sheltered and didn't teach us proper nutrition information, but those are not traumatic mistakes. Care under stable adults all throughout my formative years has allowed me to stay steady into adulthood.
The bold is exactly my point.
My wife and I were just one of ten couples fully vetted and approved by our adoption agency and waiting / hoping to adopt specifically young children or babies.
We wouldn't have been offered the baby who became my son if we hadn't recently moved house as our previous house was deemed too close to the birth parents and grandparents.
All ten couples would have had pros and cons. Health risks were, and should be, part of those pros and cons.
I never said it shouldn't be taken into consideration when multiple couples are vying for the same child. Indeed, it should just like every other factor.
I was responsible doing to the flat statement that obese couples should not be allowed to adopt.
While there is a long waiting list of couples wanting to adopt babies/toddlers (thank you for being one), there is also a long line of older children with no prospective parents.
If an obese couple decides to adopt one of these kids, telling them "no, you're too fat" is a disservice to the children who'd be much better served by having obese parents than by remaining in the system.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »MaintainInTheMembrane wrote: »No, I don’t think they should. It’s not in the children’s best interests.
How so?
I dare say that having parents is in the children's best interest and that having parents at all is more important than having slim parents.
But what it the choice isn't a binary choice between fat parents and no parents?
Maybe the choice is between fat (less healthy) parents or normal weight (more healthy) parents?
Assuming all other factors of consideration are the same, normal weight parents should be chosen. In the case of a tie, it's time to start considering all other possible disqualifications, just as an indecisive hiring manager who has to choose between two equally qualified recent graduates may choose the person who has a slightly higher GPA on paper.
For OP: To me, it's not really about being fat as measured by BMI or other measurements; it's more about being able to move enough to properly care for a child. My dad has always been either a normal weight or overweight, and my mom's BMI has always been between 31 and 40. If I had the choice between my family and foster care, I'd choose my family. Both of my parents were always healthy enough to cook food, take my siblings and I to free, local attractions whenever they both had the day off, and do other normal family stuff. They're paycheck-to-paycheck working-class adults, and I've never gone hungry or been homeless. Their worst parenting errors are that they kept us too sheltered and didn't teach us proper nutrition information, but those are not traumatic mistakes. Care under stable adults all throughout my formative years has allowed me to stay steady into adulthood.
The bold is exactly my point.
My wife and I were just one of ten couples fully vetted and approved by our adoption agency and waiting / hoping to adopt specifically young children or babies.
We wouldn't have been offered the baby who became my son if we hadn't recently moved house as our previous house was deemed too close to the birth parents and grandparents.
All ten couples would have had pros and cons. Health risks were, and should be, part of those pros and cons.
I never said it shouldn't be taken into consideration when multiple couples are vying for the same child. Indeed, it should just like every other factor.
I was responsible doing to the flat statement that obese couples should not be allowed to adopt.
While there is a long waiting list of couples wanting to adopt babies/toddlers (thank you for being one), there is also a long line of older children with no prospective parents.
If an obese couple decides to adopt one of these kids, telling them "no, you're too fat" is a disservice to the children who'd be much better served by having obese parents than by remaining in the system.
Agree it's multi-faceted and shouldn't be reduced to an absolute statement.
One of the vetted / approved couples we met had a prospective parent that was obese and severely asthmatic so clearly had long term health concerns but had the advantage that she was adopted herself which gave her personal insight and experience.
It's so case dependant that I would include that some children may be better off staying in "the system" (there's many aspects to that too) rather than being adopted. My brother and sister in-law are foster carers and for some staying in foster care until becoming adults may be a better option than adoption.
I've said before that the question in the thread is too simplistic.
My view...
Should the needs and welfare of the child be paramount? - Yes.
Should obese people be allowed to adopt? - Yes in some circumstances but not in others.
-1 -
This topic is now closed, please review our community guidelines:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/community-guidelines1
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
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions