I saw this family today at a fast food restaurant, there were three kids, one a boy about my age, a girl that was maybe 12, a little guy 4 or 5 years old, then of course the Mom and Dad and an older woman 50ish that I assume was the Grandmother. They all had one thing in common they were fat, extremely obese like you wouldn’t believe and they were ordering like the biggest things on the menu like chili burgers and chili fries. I told them that they ought to be ashamed of themselves because they were slowly murdering their children… actually no, I didn’t really care what they ate but it got me thinking about 2 questions.
Were the children predisposed to become overweight in the first place even if their parents did eat healthy most of the time? Like let’s say they were taken at birth and raised in a fitness fanatic family would they still be likely to become overweight?
Now while this family was eating they were getting a lot of stares and I witnessed people shaking their heads as they got their meal brought over. My girlfriend’s sister had her own take on the situation; she said that the children should be taken away because it was abusive. Does anyone agree with that, let’s assume the parents ate this way all the time and knew the health risks could or should they have their children taken away so they could avoid early death, Heart Disease, Diabetes and other possible health complications?
I don’t agree with my girlfriend’s sister but she does make a good point because maybe the parents really are robbing their children of a long healthy life.
:dubious:
Unless they all had Praeder-Willis, which I understand is a very rare condition of an almost inactive metabolism combined with constant feelings of starvation (and mild retardation), then no, the parents are probably at fault for constantly feeding these kids crap.
That’s really, really sad. When I was little, fast food was a “once in a while” treat, not an every day thing.
I had a shock yesterday seeing a mother giving her two kids, probably no older than five, and the youngest was about three, those 20 ounce bottles of Mountain Dew “Code Red”. Jesus, lady, are you trying to keep your kids up all night?
As far as having their kids taken away, I believe that’s usually done as a last resort, START. They’d probably try monitoring the family, putting them on probation and making sure the kids would get healthy.
People are predisposed to lots of body shapes and weights and probably even cravings towards eating. Some people certainly burn calories more readily than others. However, that doesn’t mean that some people are born to be fat. I can guarantee you that if those children were orphaned in poverty stricken Africa, they would not be very fat at all. That idea actually applies to everyone and it is a crooked gradient. Even people with glandular disorders won’t be overweight if you keep them locked in a cell and feed them exactly the right amount of food for their situation.
You are hitting on the classic nature-nurture argument and this one has elements of both. You could take most kids and place them in that same family and they could not gain that much weight. OTOH, these kids could have proper nutritional guidance and restrictions and they wouldn’t be as fat or they may not be fat at all.
It’s a little unclear from your post-- did you really approach these people and say that? If so, I gotta say, I think it’s terribly rude to chastise strangers in public for their lifestyle choices.
That said, while I agree that it’s sad and wrong what some parents do to their children, it doesn’t qualify as “abuse.” The kids have a choice-- as little kids, not so much, but as they get older into their teen years, they’ll certainly face peer pressures to be thin, and they’ll hear nutritional information at school and from their doctor. Their parents likely won’t *force *them to over-eat, and they could exercise instead of playing video games if they wanted to be fit. When they are adults, they could change their eating habits completely. Will they? Probably not, but they certainly do have a choice.
It’s likely they don’t “see” how heavy their children are. Most fat Americans, when asked, don’t consider themselves obese.
As far as genetics, yes, the family probably is predisposed to gaining weight, but that doesn’t mean they would be fat if they ate a healthy diet.
If one takes in more calories than one burns, the excess will be stored as fat. This is as certain as the sun rising in the East.
We humans have a vast capacity for fooling ourselves. Even outright lying to ourselves.
It’s easier than lying to someone else.
We look in the mirror and see our 17 year old self. We step on a scale and see 130 when it says 180.
We are able to say, without hesitation we did not cheat on our diet, yet we didn’t lose any weight, in fact, gained. But if someone else counted calories for us, we’d find loads of “invisible” calories, that never found their way into our logs.
Blame the parents or not, they could feed their children a healthy diet, but it wouldn’t work unless they are willing to get healthy themselves.
The bottom line is, they are not abusing their children, they are simply loving them to death.
“Thin” doesn’t always mean that you’re healthy. I’m a very thin person, but even as a child I led a sedentary lifestyle. (I read instead of playing.) My diet is appalling-- I get very little fiber, rarely have any vegetables, and haven’t drank a glass of plain water in years.
What I’m getting at is that probably the majority of the parents in America would need to be put on this kind of probation. I know about a dozen families with children, and few are what I’d call “health concious.” Their kids aren’t necessarily fat, but they don’t get much exercise and their diets are low in healthy foods. Those kids are at risk for health problems in the future, even though they’re not obese, as am I.
Considering that START says he doesn’t even agree with the position that it’s abuse, I doubt he would walk up to the people to tell them it’s murder…
And I disagree with you on the abuse angle. Sure it’s not the classic abuse that you read about in the news, but given the hypothetical in the OP - that the parents know that it’s unhealthy, and know that it could hurt their children, and yet continue to do it - sounds pretty abusive to me. If calling your kid a lardass is abusive, then turning him into one certainly should be. And while I certainly believe in the accountability of children, so many of these children are brought up this way from the moment they’re off the bottle. By the time they achieve enough self-awareness and education on the matter independent from their parents, the damage has long been done, both physically and mentally. As you said, will they change? Probably not. Because the people who are responsible for teaching them from birth how to manage their bodies healthily have failed to do so. How many obese 10 year olds do you see suddenly shedding pounds at 13 because they’ve figured out why everyone is making fun of them?
Oh and just to circumvent any speculations that I’m projecting in this case, my situation is almost the exact opposite: I was very thin and fit throughout my childhood, so any weight issues I have are squarely my own responsibility because I adopted habits and a lifestyle that I knew put me at danger of gaining weight.
That’s an extremely broad definition of “abuse.” By that standard, a parent who doesn’t mentally stimulate their child by encouraging reading and other intellectual persuits is abusive, or a parent who doesn’t teach their child financial responsibilty. Both of those things can harm the child or limit their future and the parents probably know it. Were my parents abusive by not encouraging me to exercise, though it would have been more healthy for me than having my nose stuck in a book?
Abuse is inflicting intentional harm. Parents who allow their children to become obese aren’t intending their children to be harmed. They do not have the goal of giving the child heart disease or diabetes. They know it might happen, but a possibility isn’t enough to make them change their lifestyle, especially if they’ve always done the same thing and been fine.
Of all the bad choices that parents make, it seems a bit absurd to focus on obesity as being the end-all indicator. Some parents chose to let their kids run wild. Some chose to feed them fatty foods. Some let their kids ride bikes without helmets.
As attractive as the idea is, we can’t force people to be good parents, because good parenting isn’t only feeding your child correctly, but also nurturing their mind and instilling a strong sense of ethics. Shouldn’t failings in these areas be just as important. Is obesity the target in this discussion only because it’s the one failing we can readily see at a glance?
Very, very few, but I’ve also seen very, very few kids love learning if their parents scorn it, or eschew prejudiced views if their parents are racists. You’re quite right that the apple rarely falls far from the tree.
No, we can’t force people to be good parents. That doesn’t mean we should shrug when they’re not and say “Well, surely they don’t actively want to hurt their kids.” A person who lets their five year old wander the streets alone probably isn’t thinking “Hot damn, I hope that kid gets kidnapped or run over” but the possibility and risk are very real. So, to me, that’s abusive (my opnion being that neglect is a form of abuse). However, this thread is not about those people, nor their decisions, and nowhere did I say that feeding your kids nothing but junk food is the only kind of abuse that exists.
There’s a reason why - because a person’s parents are hugely responsible for helping to shape their children, and their influences do not stop at 14 or 18 or even at the parent’s death. Does it excuse people from rectifying their parents’ errors later in life? No. A man who was kicked when he was a kid has no excuse for kicking his own kids, but we probably could figure out why he felt compelled to do so. And a woman who grew up as an obese girl has no excuse to continue being obese (barring medical reasons, obviously) once she’s out of her parents realm of influence, but we could probably figure out why she struggles with it.
Fair enough, but what’s to be done? Child welfare offices struggle as it is to keep up with the cases of people who physically torture their children. If we added obesity and other forms of bad parenting to the issues which parents should be monitored for, the already overloaded system would collapse.
Should we take children away from those who refuse to change their ways? If so, what would we do with them? The foster system also has a major overload as it is. People who want to adopt usually want babies, and usually, healthy white babies. In other words, there’s not a waiting list for fat, diabetic, black teens.
I’m not saying whether or not these particular parents are abusive-they might be, they might not be-I wasn’t there, I don’t know how “fat” these kids might be. But abuse doesn’t have to be intentional-neglect is also a form of abuse.
I am overweight, by no means obese, and I do blame my mom, not for me being fat because I can change that, but for helping me pattern my eating habits around reese’s and cheeseburgers.
Here is another case where a child was taken away because of her size. The doctors became convinced that the parents weren’t doing enough to put the child on a proper diet and that she was in serious danger of death (one of the things I recall hearing was that they believed her weight could cause her to suffocate in her sleep.
