I understand and believe you must protect a child. You can't give a kid to a drug addict. You can't put a kid in harm's way. You wouldn't allow a child to go to parents that don't have food on the table or a roof to put heads under. You would want to make sure that kids have the best options for their long, happy life and the security of parents BUT . . . we only hold parents to those standards when they are looking to adopt. "Natural" parents are only penalized once a problem is well documented (already traumatizing a child).
Enough with saying you can't be a parent because you are too fat. I will admit it is EASIER to parent at my current weight than it would have been at 500 pounds but I could and would have loved Ava as much at that weight as I do now and she still would have had no better or less chance of going without in life unless the random flukes of life (poor health, accidental death, etc.) got in the way of our family.
Let BEING a parent encourage better behavior and discipline and practices and life decisions. Let holding your child thrill and scare you. Let you feel the weight of your weight in proportion to the feathery bulk of a baby. It should motivate you to address your demons and to be better. I won't argue that it is up to a newborn to suffer you if you fail in your attempts to kick your demons (food, drugs, etc.) - it is NOT - but until they start nicotine screening would-be adoptive parents, I don't want to hear anymore "prior restraint" because of obesity.
Do they say no to smokers? Drinkers? People with genetic pre-dispositions to cancer and other conditions? Do they refuse on race? Can you not parent because of gender? Do most places continue to discriminate on sexual orientation? No. No. No. No. No. But be fat . . . and be out of luck.
I've got on my soapbox twice this week and I apologize.
I'll try to have a better attitude come Monday!
Enjoy the weekend!