Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
They are perfectly free to become parents. Adoptive or foster parents though, are given that right by the state. So the question really is whether the state should be handing an infant or child over to a household where they will almost certainly be exposed to second hand smoke, increasing their risk for asthma, later addiction to nicotine, cancer, and a host of other illnesses. That is pretty different than simply discriminating on weight or looks issues.
PS - I'm an ex smoker, and I have no idea how to answer this one.
So. Should the state then allow a known typhoid carrier to foster children?
Because THAT is the issue, not some weird idea of morality. Heck, heroin addiction kills fewer people than smoking, by orders of magnitude, and has far fewer health effects. Should functional junkies be allowed to foster or adopt?
At what point do you draw the line? This known health risk/addiction is an acceptable risk for foster parents, this one is not? More on topic, at what point does the STATE draw that line? Keeping in mind that the state is acting, in this case as your and my proxy.
[1 point]3 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 3 years ago by dauguy
what is to do with the smoking?do you think the adopted child`s DNA gonna change because his foster parents are smokers ? I really dont get your point. Maybe the next question of yours will be the :Should bikers be allowed to adopt and foster children?
Should truckdrivers be allowed to adopt and foster children?
Should yellow card owners be allowed to adopt and foster children?
I always thought that was so much BS until I quit smoking. About three months into my quiting, I spent the after noon with a pair of smokers in a small, enclosed living room. Didn't crave a smoke, but the next day I started going through nicotine withdrawal again. That convinced me that second-hand smoke is a real threat. If you can pick up enough nicotine to to induce withdrawal, you are picking up enough to elevated your blood pressure and affect your heart rate. Over time, it can lead to heart disease, just as if you inhaled it directly.
thats true, and fact. And if your father is truckdriver the truck can be dangerous as well.
Say your foster parents are not smoker but their child who is already 22 years old is a smoker? THen Should nonsmokers who`s child smoker be allowed to adopt and foster children?
say you are not smoker even your child isnt smoker either, but you are live close to a busy road.
Than Should nonsmokers be allowed to adopt and foster children if they are living closer than 20 yards to the busy road ?
Or rather, they force their children to play in that busy road.
And I would prefer that families have to ensure a smoke-free environment, so that son theory doesn't really apply. But like I said, freedom and all that won't let it happen, probably.
[1 point]3 years ago by anderfReplyEdited 3 years ago by anderf
That's not all that far-fetched. I know when I started smoking, I never got nauseated. My mother was a chain smoker, lit the next one off the butt of the previous one, so I was exposed to very high concentrations of second=hand smoke all my life. I think that's why I didn't get sick when I started smoking.
The "how many people do you know" argument is always flawed, btw.
Aside from that, what basis are you using to form your opinions? That there's some sort of huge conspiracy against those who shove harmful crap down our lungs?
United Kingdom
yes off course!
I don't know if therd is anybody who thinks they are not allowed to foster children!!!
Apparently yes!
But I think they're being slightly too selective.
I mean, it would be nice, but it undermines our ideals of freedom.
WHATS NEXT--FAT PEOPLE, UGLY PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITH ONE ARM, REAL SHORT OR REAL TALL PEOPLE---YOU GET IT?
Was that by accident?
Yes and didn't want to do it over--sorry
?
The all-caps.
?
??
YES YES YES--that wasn't---LOL
None of those things cause disease just from being in the same room with them. A better analogy would be "What's next, typhoid or hepatitis carriers?"
It is a question of should they be allowed to be parents---how and why would you stop that for smoking?
They are perfectly free to become parents. Adoptive or foster parents though, are given that right by the state. So the question really is whether the state should be handing an infant or child over to a household where they will almost certainly be exposed to second hand smoke, increasing their risk for asthma, later addiction to nicotine, cancer, and a host of other illnesses. That is pretty different than simply discriminating on weight or looks issues.
PS - I'm an ex smoker, and I have no idea how to answer this one.
So. Should the state then allow a known typhoid carrier to foster children?
Because THAT is the issue, not some weird idea of morality. Heck, heroin addiction kills fewer people than smoking, by orders of magnitude, and has far fewer health effects. Should functional junkies be allowed to foster or adopt?
At what point do you draw the line? This known health risk/addiction is an acceptable risk for foster parents, this one is not? More on topic, at what point does the STATE draw that line? Keeping in mind that the state is acting, in this case as your and my proxy.
what is to do with the smoking?do you think the adopted child`s DNA gonna change because his foster parents are smokers ? I really dont get your point. Maybe the next question of yours will be the :Should bikers be allowed to adopt and foster children?
Should truckdrivers be allowed to adopt and foster children?
Should yellow card owners be allowed to adopt and foster children?
what a stupidity. grrrrrrr.
The theory is that second hand smoke can give them cancer. Really, its more of a fact than a theory.
I always thought that was so much BS until I quit smoking. About three months into my quiting, I spent the after noon with a pair of smokers in a small, enclosed living room. Didn't crave a smoke, but the next day I started going through nicotine withdrawal again. That convinced me that second-hand smoke is a real threat. If you can pick up enough nicotine to to induce withdrawal, you are picking up enough to elevated your blood pressure and affect your heart rate. Over time, it can lead to heart disease, just as if you inhaled it directly.
thats true, and fact. And if your father is truckdriver the truck can be dangerous as well.
Say your foster parents are not smoker but their child who is already 22 years old is a smoker? THen Should nonsmokers who`s child smoker be allowed to adopt and foster children?
say you are not smoker even your child isnt smoker either, but you are live close to a busy road.
Than Should nonsmokers be allowed to adopt and foster children if they are living closer than 20 yards to the busy road ?
If they ask their children to play IN that busy road--which would be the closer parallel.
Or rather, they force their children to play in that busy road.
And I would prefer that families have to ensure a smoke-free environment, so that son theory doesn't really apply. But like I said, freedom and all that won't let it happen, probably.
Here in Manchester UK, smokers have been stopped from adopting or fostering toddlers because of the health risks. Read more about that here;http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/community/s/1095539_eview_the_big_debate
That's not all that far-fetched. I know when I started smoking, I never got nauseated. My mother was a chain smoker, lit the next one off the butt of the previous one, so I was exposed to very high concentrations of second=hand smoke all my life. I think that's why I didn't get sick when I started smoking.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Reply??
Where did I say ANYTHING about cancer?
Or do you think that predisposing children to nicotine addiction leads inevitably to cancer? I don't. That's why I didn't say that.
FYI: The biggest health issue from smoking is heart disease.
The "how many people do you know" argument is always flawed, btw.
Aside from that, what basis are you using to form your opinions? That there's some sort of huge conspiracy against those who shove harmful crap down our lungs?
Oh wait, there is.
Are natural parents held to that standard?