Letters to the Editor
-
Considering all the other exclusions
do you smoke
have you even been charged with a mid level misdemeanor
are any of your family members in rehab
are you gay
are you handicapped
are you in a biracial marriage
Then hell yeah let the wideloads get a taste of that too. If it takes picking on the 11 trillion % of Americans who are fat to make a change in the adoption law and unwritten practices, then yeah, let's do that. Otherwise you're just a bunch of smug bastards happy there's someone else to pick on.
-
Are you KIDDING me???
1. I haven't seen pictures of the woman in question, but depending on how tall she is, 280 lbs almost certainly is not a weight that restricts activity, as some posters here seem to be concerned, although this point is really off the point.
2. This guideline would NEVER be applied to a father. It is only women who are universally judged fit for society by their weight. Fat men are "jolly" or "appreciate the finer things" while fat women are judged stupid, lazy and unfit for participation in society.
2a. How about the fact that it's pregnancy that increases women's weight? If men were the ones that carried our children, there'd be many more fat men in society, and it would be a good joke among them, a badge of honor.
3. As others have mentioned, if you want to protect adoptees, start with a smoking ban. And while we're at it, if we're going to only place adoptees with parents who have no lifestyle facets that could potentially harm a child, then we have to prohibit drinkers, nailbiters, obsessive worriers, people who talk on their cellphones while driving, fans of pro wrestling, anyone who's ever been fired from a job, perfectionists, homophobes, and people who sometimes fight with their spouse.
If the purpose were really to protect children from potential harm, NO ONE would be deemed fit to parent and the government would just take custody of everyone (or with the current US administration, turn all children over to faith-based group homes). No, the real point of guidelines like these is to keep women in their place. It's disgusting. There are tons of (mostly older, non-infant but infant, too) children who desperately need to be placed with loving parents, and to deny them placement because a parent is obese is not protecting them; it's total disregard for their welfare.
-
right to parenthood
"The right to raise your own children any way you like (short of abuse) a fundamental right protected by the Constitution."
That's very different than being guaranteed by the Constitution the right to adopt a child. As far as I know, there is no government in the world that grants every citizen the absolute right to be given a child.
-
re: According to fat activists
Are these activists fat? I bet they can't catch the thin activists!
-
GET OVER IT
1. Enough already with the overwhelming responses to every article about overweight and obesity. Glenn Greenwald interviews Helen Thomas about irresponsible media and no one can life a finger to their keyboard. But articles about heavy man and women are work-stopping, finger-pointing excuses to vent your spleen.
2. If a loving, stable individual can provide a good, safe, loving home for a child, what the f**k is the problem?
3. My cholesterol is 125. My BP is 105/68. My A1C is 3. I bicycle 7 to 10 miles three times per week, crank on the elliptical at the gym five times a week, lift weights, and work with a personal trainer. My diet is primarily vegetarian with an emphasis on complex cruciferous veggies and soy-based proteins, all in moderation.
AND GUESS WHAT? I'm OBESE! Yes, that's right...I weigh.....280 pounds. At 5'11" my BMI says I'm going to be dead soon. Someone better shoot me to now to protect society.
ENOUGH ALREADY. You CAN be overweight and fit. I'm healthier than many of my skinny friends who don't even KNOW what their cholesterol is and who red meat every damn day.
-
Amen to that
My mom (due to a wonky thyroid) weighs a little less than that, but still well over 200. She also walks 5 miles a day, has perfect blood pressure, perfect cholesterol, and has never had diabetes.
While it seems reasonable to have some restrictions based on health status (you wouldn't want to knowingly place a kid with someone who's going to drop dead in a year or two), just basing it on weight alone is a bit much. Weighing 280 pounds doesn't automatically mean this woman is just a blob on an Amigo.
-
Obesity...
...with its thoroughly documented negative impact on health, is a totally reasonable concern when evaluating parenting prospects! We're talking about policies implemented to govern a massive population with limited resources. You have to think in terms of probabilities. That's life.
Would you let an alcoholic or drug addict adopt? No. Are these not also diseases according to the latest medical science? What about someone with a minimum wage job? No. Even if it's the result of a lack of opportunity or the cumulative effect of four centuries of discrimination? Still doesn't get the job done.
These people MIGHT provide great homes for a kid, but they PROBABLY won't. They need to get themselves into a better position to parent before they can adopt.
On a related topic, I hate it when people put the blame on genetics and claim that they'd be obese on a diet of salad and 10 mile runs. It reminds me of a professor who claimed his doctor told him he had the lungs of a 19 year old even after a lifetime at two packs a day. Even if it was true (which it wasn't, he died soon after of lung cancer) it represents a gross statistical anomaly.
When you go to your doctor and she tells you to drop 50 pounds or face a serious risk of developing Type II diabetes, do you say "Whatever, doc, not everyone my weight is diabetic". If you do, you're an idiot or in some stage of denial.
This woman lost 30 pounds from 310. She's still morbidly obese. I assume a physical is part of the adoption process. I assume the physical still suggests serious health risks. If she wants to adopt so badly she needs to address those health risks. That is doable.
And if somehow it's not, that's her bad luck. Fate conspires against some people. Quadriplegics probably aren't very good candidates for adoption either. There's no conspiracy afoot. It's pragmatism, plain and simple.