Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Call it a disease if you want, it doesn't make it so. The medical establishment is eager to label anything and everything a disease - I can't
imagine why, maybe because it makes them money. Don't ask a tailor whether or not you need a new suit. 
A disease is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions. It is also defined as a way of the body harming its self in an
abnormal way, associated with specific symptoms and signs.
Source
Disease isn't necessarily a microscopic blob that wiggles around your insides. It's a broader definition than that, and it has been for awhile. More
things are classified as a disease because we are starting to learn more about how and what affects the human body.
Do you really think doctors made obesity a disease to make money? Remember, there aren't any pharmaceuticals to treat obesity. The only thing that
treats it is sucking the fat out or working it off. I don't know about you, but my friends in the medical community (I also happen to work in it) are
not so evil as to simply label someone obese to get cash out of them.
Obesity is proven to cause serious heart problems and diabetes. I've known people who have died directly due to their obesity.
Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable deaths in
the US after tobacco use. So yes, I do believe it is a disease. It is by and large self afflicted, just like anorexia, but it is a disease
nonetheless.
Anyway, why stop here? Why not prohibit fat people from having children of their own? Why not prohibit people with piercings and tattoos from
adopting or giving birth, they might stigmatize their child? Smokers and drinkers and people who like to stay up late - they can't possibly raise
healthy children, right?
No one ever said the government has any right to control the breeding of its populous. This is a thread about adoption, however, and technically the
government is the child's custodian until it can find a suitable parent.
And you know what?
More and more smokers are getting banned from adopting. If an agency
finds that a parent is excessively alcoholic, that couple will also be disallowed from adopting. Do you know why? Because those things all have a high
likelihood of damaging a young child. Tattoos and piercings are a non issue with the government because they aren't proven harmful to
children...that's kind of a straw man argument to make smokers and alcoholics seem more benign, no?
The skinny guy who's a womanizer lacks self-control too, but you don't see the state digging into his little black book.
How do you know the state would ignore it if they knew he was a womanizer? Don't you think the state would take into consideration the fact that he
was a single male and if he adopted would have to juggle work, family, and a social life by himself? Perhaps that is why you see very, very few single
women and even fewer single men who have adopted.
It's not that I support people being 400 lbs, it's just that I don't see it as being a deal-breaker.
It's not as though the rest of society is so self-empowered and full of willpower and good judgment, it's just that the fat guy can't hide his
weaknesses like the rest of society. It's not fair to single him out, just because his weakness leaves evidence...
Perhaps not, but his weakness is scientifically proven to be harmful, and he refuses to try and fix it. It's preventable. This is a child's
life, and if a parent can't overcome their own weakness for a child, why would you ever want that child to go to him when it could go to
someone who proves themself strong enough?
It's not that I 'want' to call it a disease or not. I can say obesity is or isn't a disease until I'm blue
Okay

I'll call it a disease though, because it fits the definition quite nicely. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that account
I still stand by my reasoning: The guy is fat. He refuses to lose some weight in order to adopt. I would not let him rear a child when he can't even
raise his own rump and do some work in order to adopt it.