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?

12467

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited January 2019
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    My understanding is that BMI was designed to be used as an indicator of current body mass for populations.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    nrtauthor wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    My understanding is that BMI was designed to be used as an indicator of current body mass for populations.

    Yes, and the health risks associated on a population level within the weight ranges.
  • Zodikosis
    Zodikosis Posts: 149 Member
    And by "you" I mean whoever wrote this policy...can't edit my post.
  • jseams1234
    jseams1234 Posts: 1,216 Member
    Zodikosis wrote: »
    And by "you" I mean whoever wrote this policy...can't edit my post.

    I understood what you meant. :wink:
  • Zodikosis
    Zodikosis Posts: 149 Member
    Zodikosis 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".
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    moe0303 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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    moe0303 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.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 Member
    ginagurl79 wrote: »
    Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110. tyeo6i7cx2k0.jpeg

    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.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    edited February 2019
    kimny72 wrote: »
    ginagurl79 wrote: »
    Well look at these numbers/at 5’2 id be a bag of bones at 110. tyeo6i7cx2k0.jpeg

    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.

    873jd5loth17.jpg
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    moe0303 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?
This discussion has been closed.