games™ Forum

It a tough call there are many ways to look at it, Yeah just because the guy is over weight doesn't mean he would be incapable of looking after the child.

But when you place a child into that environment especially in a lot of cases where children have already been removed from unstable homes or whatever else it seems harsh to put them somewhere where they possibly may not recieve a chance at healthy positive life. And many other ramifications that come with the health effects of potential guardians

But what I can see the biggest issue being in current times are that if anything where to happen to child or guardian, the media and other bodies would be all over the people that placed the child in that home. Look at the shit storms that generally kick up when stuff like this happens.

can you really blame the adoption agency for airing on the side of caution.

Not really sure what's best. Would pushing a kid round care homes be any better then a stint with deathly parents?

Either way, both situations suck.

PlatinumSpectre wrote:Your just taking the steryotypical view that if someone's fat, that must mean they eat a large amount.

People get fat when they ingest more callories than they expend

Coyote Smith wrote:This is how it starts, where it ends is when they start sterilising 'unsuitable' parents.

We could sterilise everyone at birth so people would have to consciously make the decision to have a child. Anyone who wanted to have a child would be unsterilised no questions asked.

It would completely eliminate the problem of unwanted children. Would that be a bad thing?

Having recently adopted children myself I can fully see the point of the council on this. They are not saying he wouldnt be a good parent.

Children in care have already suffered the trauma of being removed from their parents. The worst thing that can then happen to the child is for him/her to be placed with a forever family and then have to be moved again/lose that family.

The guy could live well into his 70s, but more than likely a morbidly obese person isnt going to live that long. It is one more loss for that child to go through. The child will have already lost parents, grandparents, extended family, probably brothers and sisters, friends, teachers, a whole social network, even their own name. You cant gaurantee against death but surely choosing someone in good health makes more sense than choosing someone with a high likelihood of health problems - maybe even death.

I would also argue that if they really wanted it that badly, he would make the effort to lose weight. Evidence of trying to do something about it would be much more effective than crying to the local newspaper.

We were told that my smoking would make it less likely to be placed with a younger child so I stopped. Simple as that. I wanted it that badly.

Adoption is no longer seen from the parents point of view - it is very much seen from the childs point of view and everything is done to make sure that that child will get the best chances in life. It is the child that needs a family not a family that needs a child.

BertyBottyBiter wrote:

Coyote Smith wrote:This is how it starts, where it ends is when they start sterilising 'unsuitable' parents.

We could sterilise everyone at birth so people would have to consciously make the decision to have a child. Anyone who wanted to have a child would be unsterilised no questions asked.

It would completely eliminate the problem of unwanted children. Would that be a bad thing?

Would that increase the chances of catching an STD since everyone is sharing their seeds?

BertyBottyBiter wrote:

Coyote Smith wrote:This is how it starts, where it ends is when they start sterilising 'unsuitable' parents.

We could sterilise everyone at birth so people would have to consciously make the decision to have a child. Anyone who wanted to have a child would be unsterilised no questions asked.

It would completely eliminate the problem of unwanted children. Would that be a bad thing?

We need a license to drive a car, how about a license to have children? A 3 day course in which potential parents are taught skills that will benefit both them and their child? Makes sense to me...

BertyBottyBiter wrote: We could sterilise everyone at birth so people would have to consciously make the decision to have a child. Anyone who wanted to have a child would be unsterilised no questions asked.

It would completely eliminate the problem of unwanted children. Would that be a bad thing?

I think the Catholics might compain.

Bilge Rat wrote:

BertyBottyBiter wrote: We could sterilise everyone at birth so people would have to consciously make the decision to have a child. Anyone who wanted to have a child would be unsterilised no questions asked.

It would completely eliminate the problem of unwanted children. Would that be a bad thing?

I think the Catholics might compain.

And everyone would ignore them

Fat people are all jolly though, so perhaps that would cancel out any concerns about the inability to kick a ball about. I guess it's finding the right balance. Skinny, sour, mean man who can kick a ball about all day, but may well throw a strop and hide the ball vs jolly fat man who can barely run but will amuse Jr all day long with his comedy belly-wobbling antics. It's a toughie.

stoobieuk wrote:Having recently adopted children myself I can fully see the point of the council on this. They are not saying he wouldnt be a good parent.

Children in care have already suffered the trauma of being removed from their parents. The worst thing that can then happen to the child is for him/her to be placed with a forever family and then have to be moved again/lose that family.

The guy could live well into his 70s, but more than likely a morbidly obese person isnt going to live that long. It is one more loss for that child to go through. The child will have already lost parents, grandparents, extended family, probably brothers and sisters, friends, teachers, a whole social network, even their own name. You cant gaurantee against death but surely choosing someone in good health makes more sense than choosing someone with a high likelihood of health problems - maybe even death.

I would also argue that if they really wanted it that badly, he would make the effort to lose weight. Evidence of trying to do something about it would be much more effective than crying to the local newspaper.

We were told that my smoking would make it less likely to be placed with a younger child so I stopped. Simple as that. I wanted it that badly.

Adoption is no longer seen from the parents point of view - it is very much seen from the childs point of view and everything is done to make sure that that child will get the best chances in life. It is the child that needs a family not a family that needs a child.

I agree absolutely here. The child is paramount. An overweight whinger who won't get down the gym/eat salads/go to the doctor about his obesity medical condition isn't.

I can't understand why we're even debating it?

Shaolin_monkey wrote: I agree absolutely here. The child is paramount. An overweight whinger who won't get down the gym/eat salads/go to the doctor about his obesity medical condition isn't.

I can't understand why we're even debating it?

Lack of debate is a bad thing, even when we are sure we are making the right decision. Its almost akin to censorship, but it would be us choosing to censor ourselves by not asking "why" "what" "where" or "how".

-jay- wrote:Fat people are all jolly though, so perhaps that would cancel out any concerns about the inability to kick a ball about. I guess it's finding the right balance. Skinny, sour, mean man who can kick a ball about all day, but may well throw a strop and hide the ball vs jolly fat man who can barely run but will amuse Jr all day long with his comedy belly-wobbling antics. It's a toughie.

lol, wut?

-Jay- wrote:Fat people are all jolly though, so perhaps that would cancel out any concerns about the inability to kick a ball about. I guess it's finding the right balance. Skinny, sour, mean man who can kick a ball about all day, but may well throw a strop and hide the ball vs jolly fat man who can barely run but will amuse Jr all day long with his comedy belly-wobbling antics. It's a toughie.

I'm pretty sure the jolly fat man has died away. These days they're as miserable as the skinnies due to all size zero pressure placed on them by demanding women.

Either that or it was a myth to begin with.

At the end of the day surely there was a risk of him eating the child should he run out of wagon wheels.

Correct decision for me.

aidanon wrote:

BertyBottyBiter wrote:

Coyote Smith wrote:This is how it starts, where it ends is when they start sterilising 'unsuitable' parents.

We could sterilise everyone at birth so people would have to consciously make the decision to have a child. Anyone who wanted to have a child would be unsterilised no questions asked.
It would completely eliminate the problem of unwanted children. Would that be a bad thing?

We need a license to drive a car, how about a license to have children? A 3 day course in which potential parents are taught skills that will benefit both them and their child? Makes sense to me...

Isn't that all a bit....fascisty?