How is this Discrimination? This is DISCERNMENT.

I only wish that CPS would be as discerning about other aspects of potential adoptive parents. There are too many stories of adoptive parents keeping their kids in cages or otherwise abusing them.

It makes no sense to place a child with a morbidly obese adoptive parent. You are simply setting the child up for failure.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
It makes no sense to place a child with a morbidly obese adoptive parent. You are simply setting the child up for failure.

What about ensuring that the child does fail by being shuffled around different foster homes for years or kept in state 'care'?

Remember, in this case that there are two parents applying. The wife was not mentioned as being obese.

Will CPS start knocking on doors and remove children from homes, if they have a natural parent who is obese?

Come on OP! This, for once, is a valid reason for not allowing adoption of a child that deserves protection and a healthy upbringing.

A man that is that overweight is obviously not only physically unable to bring up a child, but also mentally unable to do so too. This has nothing to do with discrimination but plain old simple common-sense.

There are just so many reasons why this man shouldn't be allowed to bring up a child, one of which is basic protection, which a man of his size couldn't offer (especially in this day and age). Also, don't you think that the child will adopt the bad habits of this parent through incredibly unhealthy consumption?

I think the child deserves a better start to life.

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
A man that is that overweight is obviously not only physically unable to bring up a child, but also mentally unable to do so too. This has nothing to do with discrimination but plain old simple common-sense.

Wow. Really?

Mentally unstable, huh? I wonder how many obese parents are sitting at their screens right now wondering if you were serious when you typed that???

How can you presume to know the mental stability of a person based on their BMI?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
A man that is that overweight is obviously not only physically unable to bring up a child, but also mentally unable to do so too. This has nothing to do with discrimination but plain old simple common-sense.

Wow. Really?

Mentally unstable, huh? I wonder how many obese parents are sitting at their screens right now wondering if you were serious when you typed that???

How can you presume to know the mental stability of a person based on their BMI?

Ok, I'll just say that I'd like you to go back and RE-READ what I typed. Did I say UNSTABLE?


[edit on 12-1-2009 by dodgygeeza]

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
Ok, I'll just say that I'd like you to go back and RE-READ what I typed. Did I say UNSTABLE?

Unable, unstable, what's the difference? (It's midnight here and I've spent far too long on ATS today. I apologise for misreading one word.)

You're questioning his mental capacity to love and care for a child based on his BMI. What about his wife, is she also mentally unable or unstable to care for the child because she's married to someone obese?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
Ok, I'll just say that I'd like you to go back and RE-READ what I typed. Did I say UNSTABLE?

Unable, unstable, what's the difference? (It's midnight here and I've spent far too long on ATS today. I apologise for misreading one word.)

You're questioning his mental capacity to love and care for a child based on his BMI. What about his wife, is she also mentally unable or unstable to care for the child because she's married to someone obese?

Again, a parent who has created their own misery to such an extent that they are physically unable to function as a normal human being shouldn't be allowed to bring up a child for the sake of the CHILD itself, not some bleeding heart controversy about the rights of the parent.

Also, do you actually know how heavy 150kgs is? A feel sorry for any child who is put through losing a parent, which will inevitably happen to the child in question.

No, I'm NOT basing this off someone BMI because it is an extremely inaccurate reading. Someone with a large amount of muscle can be labelled as morbidly obese.

edit to say: I've just look at his height so he's certainly not the worst I've ever seen. However, he's certainly looking at a very short life expectancy. Apologies I should have read the article better

[edit on 12-1-2009 by dodgygeeza]

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
Again, a parent who has created their own misery to such an extent that they are physically unable to function as a normal human being

He works! He's employed! How does he not function as a normal human being?

Also, do you actually know how heavy 150kgs is? A feel sorry for any child who is put through losing a parent, which will inevitably happen to the child in question.

Adopted children have already lost parents (not necessarily deceased), so I imagine that they would be thrilled to have a FAMILY offer to care for them.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
It makes no sense to place a child with a morbidly obese adoptive parent. You are simply setting the child up for failure.

What about ensuring that the child does fail by being shuffled around different foster homes for years or kept in state 'care'?

Because of one morbidly obese guy?

You are going to extremes.

Remember, in this case that there are two parents applying. The wife was not mentioned as being obese.

Oh so the morbidly obese guy is moving out and won't have any impact on the child whatsoever?

Come on...

Will CPS start knocking on doors and remove children from homes, if they have a natural parent who is obese?

Dude.... you are just going to extremes again. We are talking about standards when deciding to GIVE children to someone. Not about TAKING children from biological parents.

While i disagree with this specific decision, i think that it is long time overdue the anglo-saxon world wakes up and reacts to the extreme obesity problem in their societies.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
You are going to extremes.

The only extreme in this thread is the decision to not let the couple adopt a child.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
Again, a parent who has created their own misery to such an extent that they are physically unable to function as a normal human being

He works! He's employed! How does he not function as a normal human being?

Also, do you actually know how heavy 150kgs is? A feel sorry for any child who is put through losing a parent, which will inevitably happen to the child in question.

Adopted children have already lost parents (not necessarily deceased), so I imagine that they would be thrilled to have a FAMILY offer to care for them.

I edited my original post.

I can't understand why you don't see the wrong-doing in putting a child in the care of a parent who will die well before their normal life-expectancy. Yes, they might have lost parents before, but why on Earth do you believe it ok to put that child through the same misery again? Adoptive parents aren't a rarity so if this particular person doesn't like the reason for it, perhaps he should get back in line and do something about his weight instead of refusing to change what is largely seen as an extremely negative quality for obvious reasons.

I think it should depend on how actively the husband can parent. If a lot of the tasks are left up to the wife due to the mans obesity, then I believe it's a fair call.

There is also the issue of whether the husbands weight is due to a medical problem or plain unhealthy over eating. The later could be representative of a self image/esteem problem which can easily transfer to an impressionable child... not to mention exposure/easy access to potentially unhealthy nutrition.

Is it an acceptable risk? I don't know... but what I do know is that fast food distributers will eventually be looked upon like the cigarette companies are now. It has become a major health issue throughout the 1st world.

I'm all for giving the child the best possible chance of a successful life, and am fairly comfortable with whatever criteria is required to put the child first. IMHO there are far too many social experiments in the child adoption business these days... but that's fodder for another thread.

IRM

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
I can't understand why you don't see the wrong-doing in putting a child in the care of a parent who will die well before their normal life-expectancy.

What's your point?

You edited your post to retract your 'mentally unable' claim?
You edited your post to retract your claim that he can't function as a human?
Now you think that he's a bit taller, so not nearly as obese?

Is all that you've got left to argue based around life expectancy? Is that it? A child could be placed with the best adoptive parents on the planet. The following day, those adoptive parents could both be killed for any number of reasons.

Are you arguing that based on a life-lottery, he won't live as long, so he'll make a crap parent?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
I can't understand why you don't see the wrong-doing in putting a child in the care of a parent who will die well before their normal life-expectancy.

What's your point?

You edited your post to retract your 'mentally unable' claim?
You edited your post to retract your claim that he can't function as a human?
Now you think that he's a bit taller, so not nearly as obese?

Is all that you've got left to argue based around life expectancy? Is that it? A child could be placed with the best adoptive parents on the planet. The following day, those adoptive parents could both be killed for any number of reasons.

Are you arguing that based on a life-lottery, he won't live as long, so he'll make a crap parent?

You you really ARE tired, time for bed I think. I haven't "retracted" anything, I have only added. If you took a few second to look back at the post where you misread the post, you'll see that there is no "edited" mark below it....

Like a previous poster said, you're taking this is a really illogical extreme so either you are just in need of sleep or it is you that should never adopt a child, because children aren't pets. If you need me to explain this any further (even though you are refusing to listen to any other side of your argument) I feel sorry for you.

To those of you who support these measure, I present the words of Martin Niemöller - I know you've been to propagandized and indoctrinated to care, but in any case, here they are:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for the sick, the so-called incurables, I didn't speak up,
because I wasn’t mentally ill.

When they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

When they came for me,
there was no-one left
to speak out.