Poll: Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids' weight?

[Angerwing]

-snip-

Ok, first I'm 400 pounds, I have been gaining weight for years, since I discovered video games and gave up sunlight. I'm 20 years old now, but I swear, if anyone EVER said "Your losing your kids cause they're fat and lazy" I'D KNOCK THEM THE FUCK OUT. God damn elitist douche bags, some people are just fucking fat, and no amount of celery is gonna fix it. I knew a guy who almost never ate, ran every day and couldn't lose any weight, turns out he had a crap metabolism, he could have junk food, but he could only eat at certain times, and in heavily controlled amounts, so he gave up, he worked out to maintain his heavy set and just ate when he wanted.

Point is, some people are just different, and you shouldn't make kids LEAVE THEIR PARENTS because they parents can't afford to put out a huge spread of healthy food for dinner.

Im sure most everyone here packed on the muffin top when they discovered video games, myself included. But the difference is that you made a lifestyle choice to reject the sun for a bag of doritos and never turned back. On the other hand, your buddy in your example was on the recieving end of some unfortunate genetics and cant be blamed for being a big guy. Its not his fault and therefore shouldnt have his hypothetical kids taken away as long as he provides a healthy lifestyle for them.

I don't eat doritos, and just because I don't go out during the day doesn't mean I don't go out, I'm fat due to metabolism too, I've even had a doctor say so, but I made a decision to be happy and fat as opposed to pretty and sick. (my stomach physically can't handle vegetables, I had a salad once and got sick all over Applebee's.)

It seems you have a profound misunderstanding about health, weight, and physics. You can't say "by all theory I should be skinny", because it doesn't work like that. Metabolism doesn't mean jack shit. You're saying that you are the sole exception to the universal law of thermodynamics. If you use more energy than you intake, you lose weight. Simple as that. Don't make excuses like "I walk", or "my stomach physically can't handle vegetables". That's bollocks, and you know it. It's not metabolism, it's not a thyroid problem, it's not anything other than over-eating, and lack of exercise. Here's a big secret: walking isn't that energy consuming. Here's another: losing weight is difficult, and it is a commitment.

You can either make that commitment, or keep on making bullshit excuses, but at the end of the day, the only person who cares is yourself.

 

[fibchopkin]

-snip-

I appreciate that some people can't help putting on the weight due to a number of different factors like in your case the stress of having a child and being deployed in Iraq and in that case it isn't you fault but just as you hate people saying what I said I hate it when people that eat loads and don't exercise because they are lazy act as though their the victim and blame it on genetics or bad metabolism.

You are trying to be understanding, and sorry if the tirade was harsh, you can probably tell that this issue is my own personal soapbox. However- I, along with most people who don't usually have the same mitigating factors as myself- generally only try to shift the blame of our weight gain when we feel persecuted. You told the original 400 lb poster that that he/she should just eat less and exercise more as if it's something they don't already know. Almost every overweight adult in the world KNOWS they are overweight and KNOWS that a healthier diet and more exercise would cure the problem. We're fat, not stupid. Telling us again, and again (in some cases) does not induce weight loss or lead to meaningful discussion- it only discourages us and reinforces negative behavior and mindsets. For most of us- depression and an unhealthy relationship with food is rooted so deep in some sort of psychological feedback loop that eating less or better is not so much a matter of will power, it's a matter of breaking an addiction cycle, whether you just chose to give up and be unhealthy at some point because you were daunted by th idea of conforming to societal norms or you experienced some crappy or stressful circumstances. And unlike addicts to almost anything else, abstinance is not an option. Most addicts struggle to lock the tiger in the cage and keep him locked upforever- acknowledged overeaters have to deal with locking up the tiger, and then letting him out for a walk three times a day before locking him back up again.

 

[Naeo]

Absolutely not. At least not on the basis of "your kid's overweight, you're the one at fault, say goodbye to your kid you abusing psychopath." If the parents are intentionally making the kid fat--not letting them eat healthy things, forcing them to eat lots of really fatty foods, etc--then yeah, they should lose custody because that's consciously deciding to impair your child's health. But in a lot of cases, the parents aren't completely aware of how healthy the food is that they're buying--things are labeled as "the healthy choice" when they're still bad for you, a lot of the nutritional information can be difficult to interpret for some people, and sometimes parents just plain don't know. Dickish though this might sound, often obesity is a bigger problem among the lower class too--the cheapest food is generally the worst for you (lots of fast food restaurants can give you a full, filling meal for less than $5, often less than $3 depending on specials). For families towards the bottom, food is a real concern sometimes, and ultimately, the need to eat is greater than the need to eat healthy, and if you're really squeezed for money, you're gonna go with whatever's cheapest but gets the job done. And then there is such thing as people being genetically wired to be overweight. One of my best friends in elementary school as well as my cousin both have pretty serious weight problems. But, for many many years, they've both been keeping a very close eye on what they eat and been doing a lot more physical exercise than usual. Yet, they both can't shed the pounds easily even though their parents are making sure they're only eating the right amount of food each day.

So there are a lot more reasons for children being obese than "the parents don't care enough." Sometimes, yeah, it's the parents' fault for not caring, but that's not often the case. Most of the time it's a lot of factors coming together that ultimately take it out of the parents' hands. Money, knowledge, genetics, etc, none of which should be penalized by the loss of custody of their children.

 

[Scytail]

snip

You aren't thinking clearly at all on the issue.

Yes, I agree, parents who do nothing to encourage healthy eating and instill things like diabetes in their children through over feeding are in a way, abusing their child.

However, do you understand just how damaging and complicated the process of taking someone's child away is? In most cases the child doesn't want to go, the parent's don't want to lose them and depression, anger and self destructive behaviour runs rampant. My aunty runs a foster home and I can tell you being over weight is far less harmful than being taken from your family.

The solution you are suggesting is a greater injustice and is far more dangerous than the actual problem is.

Nobody said it had to be forever. If the parents demonstrate a willingness to change their lifestyle and provide a healty life for them and their children then by all means, give the kids back. But if the parents dont then they shouldnt have kids in the first place.

You can't just take a child from a house like that. It's incredibly, incredibly complex and nearly always results in serious problems. I don't think you understand the gravitas of it.

Cause the alternative is ok? Leave them alone to continue over eating, distroying their health and the health of their children? I guess its best to just let them eat and die than to interfere cause its too hard or might be damaging to them. Some people need a drastic wake up call and if losing their children is what it takes then its what needs to happen.

 

[Yokai]

You ARE joking right?

The only way I see th is idea beinmg good is if the kids are being strapped to the chair and force-fed through a funnel.

No..just..no!

God no.

Have I said no yet? NO!

Taking away someone's kids because the child is obese is frankly, STUPID! It infringes on rights simply because the child isn't 'nice to look at'.

Yes there are health issues involved, but largely it seems to boil down to physical attraction. And no before anyone says it, I'm NOT overwheight myself. actually i Only recenty gained enough weight to b considered healthy, I was on the opposite end of the spectrum for a while.

Back on topic.

Children and parents choose what they eat. Parents don't start with the goal of making their kids morbidly obese, they usually start with the goal of keeping their child's tummy full. Just so happens that some of those tummy's are really really big. So what? It's their body and their decision. Youre going to do more damage than good by ripping kids away from their parents.

okay...rant over. -_-

Need I point out that the number one cause of poor health and death in the US is obesity? Let me just direct you [http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/health.html] to a list of the various health concerns presented by being overweight. I'm not sure I agree with this idea, as breaking up a family probably will cause more damage to a child's well-being than being fat, but regardless, obesity is a genuine issue with dangerous consequences. A parent allowing their child to become exceedingly overweight is about as good an idea as letting a kid smoke. It's not just about looks. Something has to be done.

A better alternative would be placing restrictions on the food that's the real problem. Sure, it's cheap and accessible, but the drawbacks of living on it are definitely outweighing the benefits, and there are ways to provide cheap and accessible food that doesn't slowly kill you. Education on the subject isn't too bad in most places, but as long as we allow companies to sell this shit, obesity's going to continue being a problem.

 

[Soushi]

Essentially, you are telling everyone that you think you can raise their kids better than they can. Yes, obesity should be a much more targeted issue than it is right now, but you know what else is an issue that needs more attention, crowded orphanages and kids that don't have a home because their parents are dead or simply didn't want them.At best it would be on a case by case basis.

I'll tell you one thing, if anyone, ever, comes for my kids, they'll be lucky if they get out alive. I will kill them stone dead, i swear it, and i don't care what reason they have.

 

[fibchopkin]

-snip-

You're not making them lose weight for apppearance you're doing it for health. When did this ever become about appearance? And while i won't say its as easy as some people make it out to be, it kinda is as simple as eat less a lot of the time. NOT EVERYTIME. But for a lot of people eating less has lost them a lot of weight. Not just less but healthier. I mean i cant imagine the counciling telling you much more than eat less and giving some tactics to do so?

I find with many people they dont actually want to eat less or lose weight. They just attempt to because they think they should. When they start to want to for themselves is when i see the motivation and effect kick in.

Im sorry i cannot agree with your post at all, other than taking parents away isnt necissarily the best option

Of course the childs health is the concern- and for the very young children in the article, the parents are most surely responsible for the state of their child's health. But this thread, and particularly the posts I was responding to, seem to have to crossed into the territory of obese young adults, and for them, not matter how much anyone says diferently, discussions about fat and obesity will translate into a discussion about their appearance. and as to this bit of your post: I mean i cant imagine the counciling telling you much more than eat less and giving some tactics to do so?

Dead wrong. As I previously stated- I am not ignorant in the nutrition or exercise departments- and contrary to popular belief, most fat people ARE aware that healthier intake + more exercise = skinnier body. Almost any NUTRITIONIST will give you that information if you schedule a meeting with him- almost any COUNCILOR will not. Many overweight people do not truly solve their prolem until they address the underlying issues causing it- it's a big part of the reason that support groups like Weight Watchers and Overeaters Anonymous work. Yes those groups give you weight loss methods and systems- but almost any member can tell you hat those systems don't work unless you go to the meetings. This is because they provide support and a kind of group therapy that allows an individual to work out the problems underlying and leading to weight gain and obesity.

 

[theultimateend]

Quoting your post so that I see the picture on page 1 and page 2

As for the original topic.

I >do< think it would be nice if you were allowed to slap the shit out of terrible parents.

But I'm not sure how you'd regulate that effectively.

As for taking fat kids from their parents? No. It's sad but that's part of reproduction, potentially ruining the life of an innocent human being.

If the kid is in their teens they have no excuse, mind you.

 

[Gennadios]

I worked as an orderly at a hospital where we had to care for a ~700 lb/~318 kg male in his mid20's. Standard case of an overprotective parent that pretty much didn't even make an attempt to create a self-sufficient human being. She just fed him and was his enabler for 3 decades.

I've never f***ing hated a human being that much in my life. Just a standard brainless twat completely lost in her own system without critical thinking or any kind of inkling of how sick and unhealthy their lifestyle was.

So yes, if kids are allowed to grow particularly fat by their parents, there's usually far more than negligence at play. Although really, I'd prefer they don't breed to begin with.

 

[BanthaFodder]

I dunno. if a kid is just overwieght, then there's no real reason for it...

but something like in the article (the 400 lb 12-year old), where it's so severe that the child's life is in danger and the poor parents just CAN'T CONTROL THEIR YOUNG CHILD FROM WADDLING TO THE PANTRY AND GETTING MORE JUNK FOOD; when it's so harmful for the child that it technically counts as child neglect/abuse, THEN the child should be taken away.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

You know what I think? I think this is a fantastic idea. If you ask me, making your kids fat should be considered a form of child abuse, since being overweight is a health problem that causes an enormous amount of health complications and is on par with smoking in terms of being detrimental to your body and overall quality of life. If I gave my children a pack of cigarettes with dinner, I'd be encouraging them to develop respiratory problems from an early age, and that would make me a wildly irresponsible parent that provides a strong case for the argument that people should apply for licenses to have children. If I feed my kids happy meals for dinner five times a week and never tell them to go outside to get active instead of spending all day in front of the TV/computer/Xbox, I'd be encouraging them to develop a whole suite of health problems from an early age, but instead of being regarded as some kind of monstrous asshole like cigarette guy, nobody around me says a word because stigmatizing people for their poor health is now taboo in our increasingly fat society where nobody wants to be confronted with facts about their poor state of health.

If you want to be a fat adult, by all means, have at it, you're well within your rights to be a happy ambulocetus, and I have no reason to take issue with the path you've taken in life (unless I have to sit next to you on a plane and your corpulent folds are invading my personal space; if that's the case then fuck you). Are you a thirty-year-old that wants to pick up five Big Macs on the way home from work? Well, it's your heart attack, buddy, but if that's what you really want, then I wish you the same luck I'd give to anybody else and hope you find happiness at the bottom of that grease-soaked bag, because you're adult enough to make decisions regarding your own health. If you make your kids fat, however, you are a direct threat to their well-being. Children don't have the ability to know the fundamentals of nutrition, and are entirely dependent on their parents for sustenance; even if they were mature and knowledgeable enough to say "no thanks, this shit is awful for me", they can't drive down the street to Chuck's Health Food to buy something far less harmful. Kids are going to eat whatever you put in front of them (unless they don't like the taste, which is something you should be prepared to deal with as a parent anyway), so it's your job to make sure that what you put in front of them isn't a sack of horse shit. Oh, and if you can't afford to feed your kids properly, common sense dictates that you probably shouldn't have kids in the first place, goddammit.

As an aside, it's rather surprising how many people on this forum readily implode into a supernova of rage at the idea of parents forcing religion down their kids' throats, but are appalled at the idea that anyone would suggest repercussions for those same parents forcing an excess of calories and unhealthy waste down their children's throats. I guess we'd all be totally okay with having our bodies poisoned so long as nobody touches our minds.

 

[Dogstile]

A. Metabolism
2. Metabolism has nothing to do with weight gain. In fact, heavier person probably has a faster metabolism than a skinnier person. The former needs more energy faster because it takes more energy to move a heavier body around. There is a very simple formula that tells you you are going to gain weight. First, take the amount of kilocalories you are eating. Second, subtract the amount of kilocalories you are using. If the number is positive you will gain weight. If the number is negative, you will lose weight.

You read cracked too?

OT:

Horrible thing. Taking apart a family should never be the answer unless direct harm is coming from it. Trust me, I've been on the receiving end.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

No. Not unless the parents are unequivocally at fault.

And it's amusing how many people still think weight is strictly a matter of thermodynamics.

 

[Angerwing]

No. Not unless the parents are unequivocally at fault.

And it's amusing how many people still think weight is strictly a matter of thermodynamics.

Strictly? No. Mostly? Yes.

Please, enlighten us on what constitutes weight gain/loss if thermodynamics aren't so important.

 

[SD-Fiend]

simply no and besides it may not be the parents fault it could be the school food

 

[Sylveria]

Taken away? No. But if the kid is obese, the parents should get pushed, by legal means if necessary, to actually get the kid to lose weight. Yes, some people are genetically predisposed to be big, but no "kids" should be "obese". It's a matter of proper control.

 

[Sylveria]

simply no and besides it may not be the parents fault it could be the school food

Most school food is garbage, true, but there's a lot of kids going into school obese. We're talking 4-5-6 year olds who already have weight issues. That is definitely on the parents. Also, if the school food is woefully unhealthy, which most of it is, brown bagging it is not that hard. No matter how busy you are as a parent, throwing together a sandwich and a baggy full of salad or a banana isn't that difficult or expensive.

 

[Marik2]

You know what I think? I think this is a fantastic idea. If you ask me, making your kids fat should be considered a form of child abuse, since being overweight is a health problem that causes an enormous amount of health complications and is on par with smoking in terms of being detrimental to your body and overall quality of life. If I gave my children a pack of cigarettes with dinner, I'd be encouraging them to develop respiratory problems from an early age, and that would make me a wildly irresponsible parent that provides a strong case for the argument that people should apply for licenses to have children. If I feed my kids happy meals for dinner five times a week and never tell them to go outside to get active instead of spending all day in front of the TV/computer/Xbox, I'd be encouraging them to develop a whole suite of health problems from an early age, but instead of being regarded as some kind of monstrous asshole like cigarette guy, nobody around me says a word because stigmatizing people for their poor health is now taboo in our increasingly fat society where nobody wants to be confronted with facts about their poor state of health.

If you want to be a fat adult, by all means, have at it, you're well within your rights to be a happy ambulocetus, and I have no reason to take issue with the path you've taken in life (unless I have to sit next to you on a plane and your corpulent folds are invading my personal space; if that's the case then fuck you). Are you a thirty-year-old that wants to pick up five Big Macs on the way home from work? Well, it's your heart attack, buddy, but if that's what you really want, then I wish you the same luck I'd give to anybody else and hope you find happiness at the bottom of that grease-soaked bag, because you're adult enough to make decisions regarding your own health. If you make your kids fat, however, you are a direct threat to their well-being. Children don't have the ability to know the fundamentals of nutrition, and are entirely dependent on their parents for sustenance; even if they were mature and knowledgeable enough to say "no thanks, this shit is awful for me", they can't drive down the street to Chuck's Health Food to buy something far less harmful. Kids are going to eat whatever you put in front of them (unless they don't like the taste, which is something you should be prepared to deal with as a parent anyway), so it's your job to make sure that what you put in front of them isn't a sack of horse shit. Oh, and if you can't afford to feed your kids properly, common sense dictates that you probably shouldn't have kids in the first place, goddammit.

As an aside, it's rather surprising how many people on this forum readily implode into a supernova of rage at the idea of parents forcing religion down their kids' throats, but are appalled at the idea that anyone would suggest repercussions for those same parents forcing an excess of calories and unhealthy waste down their children's throats. I guess we'd all be totally okay with having our bodies poisoned so long as nobody touches our minds.

Finally theres someone here who makes sense

Gotta love societal double standards.