±«Óãtv

Heh, I'm only going to make it to 78. B

At least it's something they can change (cos she's not exactly thin either). Worse when you're told you're too old.

They say I'll live to 81. I should floss every day (rather than every couple of days), I should try to have more frequent bowel movements and I should get checked out at the doctor more often.

Will we never be done with this 'measuring' of people? Statistics, statistics, statistics...

What has the guy's weight got to do with his ability to be a parent?

The whole sorry notion is predicated, not only on the idea that human worth is measurable in statistical terms, but also in the fallacy that I can control the moment of my death.

Can the guy laugh, can he love, can he dance, can he celebrate the worth of a child others have rejected? Can he bring a smile to the face of another, are these questions even being asked?

No, the answer to the world and the universe turns out to be 42, the hitchhiker was spot on, we are just numbers.

Stand in line everybody and wait to be counted.

Alternatively, take the risk of being loved and take the risk of returning it. Seriously, some of these people need to go read The Velveteen Rabbit:

"What is real?" said the (velveteen) Rabbit one day (to the Skin Horse)

"(real) is a thing that happens to you... it doesn't happen all at once. You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't often happen to people who break easily, or have sharp edges. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But those things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand."

Copy to autism/abortion thread.

92! I'll say something nice at all of your funerals.

The primary rights here are the rights of the child, not the rights of people to have children. If people don't have the self-discipline to keep off the beef, that surely counts against them. Similarly, children should be protected against smokers and alcoholics. Yes?

[Cripes - I'm watching "Around the world in 80 faiths" on ±«Óãtv iPlayer, and they're smoking BABIES for goodness sake! Smoking babies! No!]

-skinny H

You'd better explain, Helio ... smoking babies??

Main point about the measuring of people in terms of statistics and productivity ignored again.

Would somebody please attempt a reply.

"Similarly, children should be protected against smokers and alcoholics."

By whom, caffeine addicts, workaholics, and egotists?

Sounds awfully judgemental in an age of tolerance.


skinny latte

Peter I'll reply. It's not about judging people by a measuring tape, it's about protecting children. Children should not be placed in homes where their health is endangered, and that means alcoholics and smokers are questionable adopters. The issue is different with obesity, because the concern here seems to be that an obese parent may not be around long enough to fully parent a child. These are not silly concerns on the part of adoption services.

PTL

Thanks for your reply, you raise an important point about protecting children, it is one which is foremost in my mind each day in school.

This particular issue relates to the obese and not to smokers or alcoholics and as you point out probably relates to one's life expectancy. But my point is simple, when it comes to life expectancy, no one has any real control over this. The life expectancy calculator linked above offers suggestions for increasing one's length of life by, 3 months or 6 months, and that when one is already 70 or 80 or, in the case of helio, Methuselah. That's not much, and, of course, ignores the danger of buses! As Billy Connelly said once, he doesn't want his extra year when he's 80 or 90, he wanted it when he was 30!

And as I said why not exclude workaholics, surely we want mum and dad to appear home sometime for the kid?

But 'fat' is in at the moment, and is an easy target, and there are more reasons than a BMI for making decisions about what makes good parents.

Put it this way, if Prince harry had said, "our 'fat' friend" would that have been offensive?

It's the defining of people by statistics which appalls me. The ill are a financial burden, the creative are to be nurtured (born) because they can contribute to society, the rest? and those with a mismatched IQ / Reading Ability 'gap' refused educational support.

It's just plain wrong.

BTW Helio - 86 - could be a close run thing; if I out do you, which hymns do you want?

Peter, I think if Prince Harry was caught on camera demeaning someone's weight or calling someone "fat", we would certainly be debating the appropriateness of that language in news reports. Overweight children and young people face dreadful stigma and bullying because of their weight. If a royal prince was found engaging in that kind of banter, it would be front page news.

William

I agree. And, by the same token, the refusal to permit a couple to adopt on the basis of their weight is one which is also questionable, as questionable as refusing someone on the basis of their race.

And just by way of clarity. Interesting conversation with John on the Prince Harry thread. I wasn't questioning The Prince's use of language I was questioning why John's use was removed, particularly when he attempted to ensure that the words were left incomplete and were flagged up as examples.

Anyway best wishes for the 'Irish Blog' and 'Blueprint' nominations, maybe you'll do the double!

I did the test and came in at 95 - which was rather disappointing at there were three centenarians in my fairly immediate family... It's all relative ain't it?

Portwyne

95, and you're disappointed. Is it the thought of missing out on a telegram that has you down hearted?