View Single Post
Old 03-18-2010, 11:35 PM   #38
Gemme
Practically Lives Here

How Do You Identify?:
Queer Stone Femme Girl of the Unicorn Variety
Preferred Pronoun?:
She, as in 'She's a GEM'
 
Gemme's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The roads are narrow here
Posts: 36,631
Thanks: 182,498
Thanked 107,972 Times in 25,664 Posts
Rep Power: 21474888
Gemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST ReputationGemme Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bit View Post
But you DID strongly imply it, Dapper, whether you meant to or not.

I have to disagree, Bit. Hy said, very clearly, that hy didn't think anyone should attempt to take the children from her. It's at the end of Dapper's post, which is why it might have been missed.

Hy's saying, I believe, that being that size and dealing with the health complications that are sure to arise, that caring for her children will become more difficult for her.



I bolded for emphasis to point out that whatever you meant, it came across as if someone who is not able to personally care for her children should have them taken away. And I think softness had a valid point: what if instead of being fat, she had MS?

Where do we draw the line, especially if she's supporting her family doing this? How do we know she won't make enough money to hire a nanny? I personally think it's a very slippery slope when we start talking about whether someone who is not, by any account at all, abusive deserves to have her children live with her or not. I understand that you don't think she should lose her children for this behavior--yet--but where do we draw the line without stepping on all their rights?
Oh, you hit a sore point with me here (I must be uber sensitive tonight). So, anyone who has the money should just hire a nanny and not have that one on one quality time with their children? I respectfully disagree.

For myself, the point is not about her and her desires at all. It's about the FALLOUT from those desires upon her children. How many people do anyone of us know that are at or near 1000 pounds and living life as actively as most of us do? I don't know of any at all. Those folks that I have heard of that are in the 600-700-800 lb. and up range or that I have seen have immense health issues and have suffered a decrease in the quality of their lives.

Her choice to feed herself until she reaches 1000 lbs. will definitely affect her children, and not in a positive way. "Oh, look! Mom's getting money from strangers to eat and eating is robbing her of her mobility and now she doesn't have the ability to go anywhere with us and do stuff with us. We sit around her bed and hug and talk sometimes but I really wish I had my old mom back."

I see that happening, at the very best possibility.

MS, as we all know, is not a choice. This woman is making a CHOICE to do this to herself, with no apparent regard for her children. That is what gets my goat.
__________________


I'm misunderestimated.
Gemme is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Gemme For This Useful Post: