balloon:seahorse::black:white

heard a teaser for a news story about a proposal to put fat kids in foster care. no, i don't know the full story. i just heard the TEASER. duh. try to pay attention.

so, fat kids in foster care. the assumption here is that they are being abused or, if that sounds too harsh, then let's say "not well cared for" in their home of origin. the assumption is that their fatness is a result of the environment and systems in which they exist.

my immediate thought was - good god, no! there is no way that The State should be raising children. yikes! that is just a bad path to turn down. that's the path in the woods at night, with the snake and the skunk on it. it's dark, it's dangerous, and it smells bad.

children should not be placed in systematized, state-based care simply because their current home life is contributing to their obesity. sort of begs the question, in what case SHOULD they be placed in foster care, eh? contributing to the obesity of a minor is a form of abuse. it's not the same as hitting a child, but if you were to pick things apart, you'd be hard pressed to say it's less damaging.

so, here i am mentally taking a stand against separating fat kids from their enablers while also mentally accepting that kids who are being hit should be separated from the ones who do the hitting.

pluswise, read down there a few days back what i said about home care for a severly disabled young man. i am taking a stand there that the disabled guy should be institutionalized. how does that mesh with my stance on the fat kids? well, clearly i am a raging hypocrit who picks and chooses a stance to fit the moment.

or, NOT.

fat kids are a product of their environment, a symptom of a broken system. the disabled young man from a few days ago is a product of his genetics.

OKAY. i know. it's not that clear cut. but seriously, calm the fck down and pay attention to the argument, okay? okay.

if the solution to fat kids being fat is to place them in foster care, then the obviously the reason they're fat is that they are where they are. if the proposal is to fix the problem by changing the environment, then that's an admission that the environment is the problem. the difference with the disabled guy is that the problem isn't the environment. his home is not contributing to his disability. so, there's the argument for leaving the disabled guy at home and moving the fat kids to foster care.

OR, is it?

in the case of the disabled guy, money is being wasted in the current system and care could better be provided institutionally, and -- and this is key -- there's nothing society will gain with that guy being kept at home. there's nothing for his mom to learn. there's no reason to put our money into his being at home, other than we feel for his mom and her need to have him home. with the fat kids, we as a society do gain if they stay at home and time, money, attention are put towards fixing the things about their homes that have caused their obesity. opportunity to eat fresh, nutritious food and to exercise - these things will fight obesity and strengthen the community as a whole.

pluswise (this is where it gets harsh), these kids have potential. the disabled guy does not have potential. we as a society cannot afford to pay for every wonderful thing. we have to make choices and those choices are more like snarling pit bulls than cuddly labrador puppies - they aren't especially fun or comforting.

it's a given we cannot do everything, and it's an oversimplification to say that the situations i've presented (rather poorly) here are a true dichotomy. however - what say ye? would you put the fat fatties in foster care? would they be better off there? would society be better of with them there?