It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British husband told he's too fat to adopt.

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Further to that what about the two women who were allowed to surrogate a child and hence keep it despite that same one having had a gender change op in order to appear as a man (and yet kept their womb). I'd say thats completely obsurd. I don't mind their having a child, but for goodness sake, let the person who is still completely a woman have the child.




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Here! Here!
Especially since he'd rather have a go at blabbing to the tabloids about "ooh I'm fat and they won't let me adopt unless I lose some weight" instead of just thinking " 4 lbs? that isn't that much, sure I can lose that in no time!"

In my opinion his reaction to the news that he has to lose weight to have a child just lost him the right to adopt regardless of his weight.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
grr dbl post again!

[edit on 14-1-2009 by CloudySkye]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
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.


Your own source betrayed you and i don't know why you quoted it. It says infectious agents and non infectious disease like heart disease and genetic disease. Being a fat person cannot be attributed to these things except in exceedingly rare cases (Prada-willis for example).

I know a couple of nurses and a doctor and all of them refuse to call it a disease. Maybe disorder would be more appropriate as i think it's a psychological problem like drug usage which leads to dependency. However it is a choice to be fat, plain and simple and so absolutely they should be refused adoption and no fat person nshould be pitied.

Ok someone with an illness that prevents them from moving very much could be excused, but they are rare people and even lots of this group could control their weight with diet. I state that as someone who has less physical activity than a pet rock due to ill health.

Please don't call this a disease when it's self inflicted, i mean that's like a slap in the face to someone with cancer don't you think?


Originally posted by Avenginggecko
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?


I'm confused as this seems a contradiction to what you stating this is a disease. If it's simply weakness (and it is) mixed with lazyness then how is that a disease? However i agree with your points here, and in all truth they were made earlier in the thread and i think it should have ended there.

Being fat is a choice for well over 90% of the people on earth. I would love to see a full list of all disorders, diseases, illnesses and whatever else that cause obesity. Then i could look up official figures and pin down some numbers on the exact percentage of peopel who are fat and can't do anything about it.




[edit on 14-1-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
[edit on 14-1-2009 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Actually, a closer read of the article would show that it agrees with my statement...


The term disease broadly refers to any abnormal condition that impairs normal functioning. Commonly, this term is used to refer specifically to infectious diseases, which are clinically evident diseases that result from the presence of pathogenic microbial agents, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, multicellular parasites, and aberrant proteins known as prions. An infection that does not produce clinically evident impairment of normal functioning is not considered a disease. Non-infectious diseases are all other diseases, including most forms of cancer, heart disease, and genetic disease



Morbidity (from Latin morbidus: sick, unhealthy) refers to a diseased state, disability, or poor health due to any cause.[12] The term may be used to refer to the existence of any form of disease, or to the degree that the health condition affects the patient. Among severely ill patients, the level of morbidity is often measured by ICU scoring systems.


Source

I don't know anyone who would wear their cancer as a badge of honor and be offended that someone who is obese be classified as having a disease like them. They may, however, be offended that an obese person doesn't treat themselves and fix the problem. The logic that it isn't a disease because it doesn't directly cause death is flawed because it doesn't necessarily have to be a direct cause. HIV doesn't cause death, but it ensures it without treatment. (edit: yes I know this is a virus, it's still a relevant parallel)

I can use weakness and disease interchangeably, they are not mutually exclusive. His weakness is his obesity. I call it weakness because it's a preventable disease.

"Please don't call it a disease" Hmm...well, it's not really up to me. I didn't define it as such, the majority of the medical community and most governments define it as such. I didn't wake up and decide it was a disease, I educated myself on its effects and agreed with the majority. So yes, it is still a disease.

Your opinion, and the opinion of others, is that a disease can only be something caused by uncontrollable factors, and not the individual (please correct me if I have misunderstood). I do not agree with that. Neither does the medical establishment, and neither does the government. I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you. Obesity is a disease. This man is afflicted with a disease he brought on (probably) through his own actions and a genetic predisposition to it.




[edit on 14-1-2009 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avenginggecko
Actually, a closer read of the article would show that it agrees with my statement...


I read that bit and i'm sorry but being fat is not the same as the conditions listed in bold. If you had read my post you would see i had listed some of them also as i had fully read your article. It's rare anyones chooses to get cancer that i know of, but you can choose to stuff food in your mouth and so it's not a disease. Nor is a genetic disease something you can help so again, being fat is not a disease.



Originally posted by Avenginggecko

I don't know anyone who would wear their cancer as a badge of honor and be offended that someone who is obese be classified as having a disease like them. They may, however, be offended that an obese person doesn't treat themselves and fix the problem. The logic that it isn't a disease because it doesn't directly cause death is flawed because it doesn't necessarily have to be a direct cause. HIV doesn't cause death, but it ensures it without treatment. (edit: yes I know this is a virus, it's still a relevant parallel)


Wow you missed my logic by a leap there. I never said it had to cause death did i to be called a disease. Please quote where i said that. It's not a disease because it is easily fixable unless the patient has a very clear condition causing the obesity. The majority don't, unless physics is wrong and these peopel are magically producing energy from thin air and storing it as fat.


Originally posted by Avenginggecko

I can use weakness and disease interchangeably, they are not mutually exclusive. His weakness is his obesity. I call it weakness because it's a preventable disease.


Sorry you can't use those interchangeably. It's the same in saying that alcoholism is a disease when in effect it is self inflicted. Now of course it can lead to diseases and damage to the body but the actually addiction is not a disease.



Originally posted by Avenginggecko

"Please don't call it a disease" Hmm...well, it's not really up to me. I didn't define it as such, the majority of the medical community and most governments define it as such. I didn't wake up and decide it was a disease, I educated myself on its effects and agreed with the majority. So yes, it is still a disease.


No one i've ever spoken to in the medical community calls it a disease, the same with alcoholism and i've read a great deal about it also. Hell i know a reformed alcoholic who says it isn't a disease! Being fat is the same thing, over indulgence.


Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Your opinion, and the opinion of others, is that a disease can only be something caused by uncontrollable factors, and not the individual (please correct me if I have misunderstood). I do not agree with that. Neither does the medical establishment, and neither does the government. I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you. Obesity is a disease. This man is afflicted with a disease he brought on (probably) through his own actions and a genetic predisposition to it.


Genetic predisposition is sadly a poor excuse. I say that because if you dropped the guy into a famine he would shed the pounds due to lack of food and the movement he would inevitably have to undertake to find scraps of food.

I also don't agree with you on the majority of the medical community calling it a disease. This isn't the case from the articles i have read. Furthermore it depends on which government you are talking about.

www.dh.gov.uk...

That's the UK governments official health website and it does not mention obesity being a disease in that article. Instead it says


Obesity is associated with many illnesses and is directly related to increased mortality and lower life expectancy.


Notice the careful wording to not call it a disease, they may treat it as a disease as it seems the only approach at this point, however it is not labeled a disease here. They have taken the decision to treat it as a disease because they really couldn't think of any other way forward.


[edit on 14-1-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



I read that bit and i'm sorry but being fat is not the same as the conditions listed in bold. If you had read my post you would see i had listed some of them also as i had fully read your article. It's rare anyones chooses to get cancer that i know of, but you can choose to stuff food in your mouth and so it's not a disease. Nor is a genetic disease something you can help so again, being fat is not a disease.


no, being just fat isn’t. However, this guy is morbidly obese, which is a disease that afflicts the body. How many times do I need to type out that regardless whether or not you believe obesity is a disease, the medical community as a whole, as well as most governments, believes it is.

The American Obesity Association classifies it as one.

The Center for Disease Control classifies it as one.

The World Health Organization classifies it as one

The American Association of Bariatric Physicians classifies it as one

The American Dietetic Association classifies it as one.

And that’s just a few relevant parts of the medical community. But please, feel free to continue the tirade and pick out small parts of my post to contort…


Wow you missed my logic by a leap there. I never said it had to cause death did i to be called a disease. Please quote where i said that. It's not a disease because it is easily fixable unless the patient has a very clear condition causing the obesity. The majority don't, unless physics is wrong and these peopel are magically producing energy from thin air and storing it as fat.


Okay, amended: HIV doesn’t cause sickness, it just allows the body to become vulnerable to sickness. The parallel still holds true, but I’m sure you’ll find another word in here to pick out without really refuting the logic - And I didn’t miss your logic...you just missed mine



Sorry you can't use those interchangeably. It's the same in saying that alcoholism is a disease when in effect it is self inflicted. Now of course it can lead to diseases and damage to the body but the actually addiction is not a disease.


Sorry I can’t use them interchangeably? Darn, I didn’t know you were the master of that. As I’ve already stated to you, it fits the definition. What else can I say?


No one i've ever spoken to in the medical community calls it a disease, the same with alcoholism and i've read a great deal about it also. Hell i know a reformed alcoholic who says it isn't a disease! Being fat is the same thing, over indulgence.


So you’ve spoken to a few of your friends that are doctors and nurses and they agree that obesity isn’t a disease. I’ve already provided links for you to show you, and I’ll restate the entire community doesn’t believe the same things, but the bulk of them do agree that it is a disease. Just because you know a few guys doesn’t make your logic any more correct. Seriously. My research proves what I’m saying is right. I also know ‘people in the medical community’, and I work with doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and insurance companies on a daily basis...big whoop, right?

Alright, so you think the UK DH thinks it isn’t a disease?

Think again!

Feb. 20, 2008, UK Dept. of Health


Obesity is both a highly complex issue for society and a costly debilitating lifestyle disease. Already a quarter of the adult population in England is classified as obese and almost a fifth of all children under the age of 16 are obese.


My rationale still stands…you just have to do the research a little…




[edit on 14-1-2009 by Avenginggecko]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 




The adoption agency has a choice between a good parent and a bad example.


A bad example is just as effective at creating good people as a good example. Sometimes moreso.



People with tatoos and piercings don't risk their health or the health of the child they're adopting now do they.


And fat people do? Oh, but they serve as a shining example of how much good can come from eating too much, right? So the kid is bound to say "I want to be just like daddy when I grow up, I better eat three helpings of pork chops.

What a load of crap. The kid can just as easily look at his father and say "I never want to be that."

Parents don't have to be good examples, it all depends on how quick the kid is to learn important lessons.



if you're a heavy drinker you won't be able to adopt. At least that's how the system is supposed to work.


Right. Which is why so many men I've known were able to ride/drive into work with 3 vodkas in them @ 8am, drink all day long at their desks and at lunch, and none of their colleagues suspected they might have a problem. A couple of them even managed to be passable father figures...



Also the adoption services tend to pick stable couples, not a womanizer. So basically all of your examples are null and void.


So, men in relationships don't sleep with other women?


So, the adoption agency has a relationship radar that looks into the souls of the applicants and deciphers their innermost demons?

I know that if I was a child molester or a drunk or a womanizer or an abuser, I would definitely check the applicable box on the application form. I mean, why not?

It's ridiculous, this assertion that a government agency can even begin to function as intended, nevermind when it comes to something as nuanced and subjective as picking suitable parents for a child.

The state doesn't have a single job it doesn't screw up, and I don't care if you live in Madagascar or Brooklyn.

I don't even trust the state to keep the streets free of candy bar wrappers and liquor bottles, but I'm supposed to trust them to tend to the intricacies of an adoption?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
It's ridiculous, this assertion that a government agency can even begin to function as intended, nevermind when it comes to something as nuanced and subjective as picking suitable parents for a child.

The state doesn't have a single job it doesn't screw up, and I don't care if you live in Madagascar or Brooklyn.

Exactly.

However, with the numerous replies in this thread supporting the decision to not permit the couple to adopt, it shows why the state keeps on screwing things up. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

The only people who are let down by this decision are the children who need a family to care for them. That's the sad part.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Simple solution.

Fatty loses the weight and gets his BMI down to 40. Then after that him and his new child can go to karate together and bond forever.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



"The only people who are let down by this decision are the children who need a family to care for them. That's the sad part. "

You're craaaazy tezz!

Next you'll be telling us fluoride is bad for us and that vaccines contain mercury (which is now good for us) - All crazy Conspiriatorialistic Theorums...

I bet they'd let that father adopt if he agreed to make the child wear a gps tracking watch... Which is a good thing!

A microchip would be even better! ExtraDoubleplusGood!



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by USMC-oorah
Simple solution.

Fatty loses the weight and gets his BMI down to 40. Then after that him and his new child can go to karate together and bond forever.


Surely this should be the end of the thread. I mean it's obvious that if the guy can't lose the weight then he obviously doesn't want the child enough does he.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by dean007
you know if fat people cant adopt i dont think gay people should be allowed to either
i think growing up in a gay household would be way worse for the precious child
getting beat up in school because you have 2 mommies or 2 daddies
never heard of someone getting beat up because there daddies a fatty


?! You're kidding? So, let's say a gay couple (be it men or women) want to adopt and both prove they are healthy, financially stable and can provide a loving and caring home to a child, you'd say no because the child "might get beat up in school" ?!

Oh man. This is what the world has come to, worried a child could get beat up because their parents are gay. Mate, this isn't 1990! Being fat is now a social "faux-pas" - being gay isn't!

Well, at least outside of the puritanical United States that is...

[edit on 15-1-2009 by noonebutme]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
yes i think being stuck in a gay household would be way more traumatizing than every living with a fatty

half the people in the world didnt even plan to have the kids they have
and here are two people that wanna adopt someones crack baby and there to fat
i wonder if a Ethiopian would mind fat parents

and being gay is not as accepted as you think nor is it natural

if being gay was so great we wouldnt even be here having this discussion because my gay daddy would of swallowed the load that made me

why do gay people think they have any right to have children



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by USMC-oorah
Simple solution.

Fatty loses the weight and gets his BMI down to 40. Then after that him and his new child can go to karate together and bond forever.


Surely this should be the end of the thread. I mean it's obvious that if the guy can't lose the weight then he obviously doesn't want the child enough does he.


It should be. Rules are rules and this isn't even a very strict one. Lose weight so, you can raise a child. Yeah, sometimes rules suck but, you gotta obey them in some cases. Such as adopting a child.



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I can't believe the negativity on this subject! Let me ask all of you---how many of you grew up in foster homes? How many were abused as children? Mentally, physically, emotionally and sexually? If you all are going to sit here and say just because someone might be overweight/fat/morbidly obese, but loved children and treated them right and wanted to open their home to a child, shouldn't be able to adopt ---what gives you the right? If you've not had any loving parental figures in your life, only ones who beat the crap out of you, please tell me what in the hell difference does it make if a potential parent is fat?

I really can't believe this! This is similiar to not letting white folks adopt black kids, or visa versa. I was turned away from a family because they were black, and I wasn't. Who gives a rats behind if someone is black, fat, green, or purple as long as that someone is a decent individual?

And let me tell you how disappointing it is to a child to have someone tell you that the family you had put your hopes into adopting you or fostering you was not approved, or was turned down for some stupid reason.

Ask any kid in this situation if they would have a problem being adopted or fostered by an overweight person and I bet you they'd have no problem with it at all.



[edit on 16-1-2009 by virraszto]



posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dean007
yes i think being stuck in a gay household would be way more traumatizing than every living with a fatty

half the people in the world didnt even plan to have the kids they have
and here are two people that wanna adopt someones crack baby and there to fat
i wonder if a Ethiopian would mind fat parents

and being gay is not as accepted as you think nor is it natural

if being gay was so great we wouldnt even be here having this discussion because my gay daddy would of swallowed the load that made me

why do gay people think they have any right to have children


Wow. That's pretty stunning. I'm going to guess from the poor spelling and grammar you're no older than 13 and that you're very homophobic.

Yes, homosexuality *is* normal and it *is* much more accepted that it was, say 10 years ago. But then as I said, that's the common view *outside* north america -- you're profile lists you as being in Alberta, Canada -- you're in the middle of nowhere so I guess social updates haven't hit your area yet


As for it being "traumatizing" -- I don't know how that would be. A child raised by two caring parents who happen to be gay would make no difference. The child will grow up knowing that both of them care for the child and that while its circumstance looks different than other children around him, they'll accept it. Children are very good at accepting things like that.

*Perhaps* they might get some flack from moronic idiots (no doubt in Alberta, Canada) about the gay parents -- but we ALL get ribbed in school; it's part of growing up.

Funny thing is, I've always found that those who are so opposed to homosexuality are in fact themselves unsure of their own sexuality so as a means of defence, are very unaccepting and and even aggressive as a means to redirect. Because if you're not gay, then why would gay people bother you? And if a child is born gay, well, that's that. It's genetic.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join