Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[DragonofAna 10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

One of these, where you present two options and try to force someone to say which is preferable, when in the real world those are not related or not the only two options.

 

Well, which is it, kill all the babies or unleash nuclear war?

 

As usual - talking garbage aint ya.

I bet there are more than 50 families out there who want to adopt but cannot because one or both parents smoke. Therefore what I said is relevant.

You just cannot admit it because then it would make your arguement look bad.

 

I would imagine that the people who want to kill all babies or release nuclear war are very very few, and that question has no relevance to the topic unless you are suggesting that these people wish to adopt.

[funkymiss 10]

The couples I know who are trying to adopt would do or give up anything to achieve it. You would need to give up smoking if you were pregnant so why would you not expect to have to do this to adopt or foster?

[Cyclone 10]

Lots of people don't give up smoking whilst pregnant.

[funkymiss 10]

Lots of people don't give up smoking whilst pregnant.

 

Or drinking. It's not something I can get my head around.

[Cyclone 10]

As usual - talking garbage aint ya.

No, not everything you don't understand is garbage.

I bet there are more than 50 families out there who want to adopt but cannot because one or both parents smoke. Therefore what I said is relevant.

But still a false dilemma since the two options you present are not the only two, as already suggested, giving up smoking is an option as well.

You just cannot admit it because then it would make your arguement look bad.

Admit what? I haven't denied that your comments are relevant, you're now straw manning in addition to using false dilemma's.

Maybe if you stop trying to score points you'll be able to add more to the discussion.

I see that you haven't managed to answer my simple question yet... Is it too difficult?

if there's an identifiable risk then a child shouldn't be placed there.

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

Any chance of you answering it now?

 

I would imagine that the people who want to kill all babies or release nuclear war are very very few, and that question has no relevance to the topic unless you are suggesting that these people wish to adopt.

It has no relevance, it's an example of a false dilemma, I guess you missed that though.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Cyclone

[DragonofAna 10]

Originally posted by Cyclone

If there is an identifiable risk then a child shouldn't be placed there.

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

 

Any chance of answering it now

 

I disagree with the whole thing on account of the fact that identifiable risk in this instance refers to people who smoke. There is no risk if the people who smoke do not do so in the presence of the child so therefore there is no identifiable risk.

There is no way of identifying which parents may smoke in front of their children so all parents who smoke are banned from adopting which leaves a lot of children who could be in loving homes being left in care.

 

I think you are a complete and utter prat for implying that if someone will not give up smoking then they cannot love their children very much and if that is not what you are saying then I appologise, but it is what seems to come across from your comments. Being a smoker does not by default make you a bad parent.

[GothicCharm 10]

The standard line by smokers about pollution is regarding driving and pollution. It's a complete red herring though unless you are addicted to driving and pop out for a drive several times a day with no other purpose to achieve. Of course this doesn't happen and driving is a means of transport that is a necessity for most people. It's causing pollution, which is not the same as promoting pollution (your words), and the fact that multiple sources of pollution exist doesn't mean that you can't tackle one of them first..

 

well i dont smoke so it must be refreshing for you to find someone who has a different opinion heh.

 

By the way it does happen I know alot of people who just go for a drive, people that drive EVERYWHERE even just round the corner because they love to drive. So surely driving for the hell of it would be just as bad as smoking?

[Jabberwocky 46]

Bottom line is smokers will defend their "Right" to smoke as much as drivers will defend theirs to drive all over the place and make unneccesary trips.

 

Both are harmful in their own sweet little ways.

[Cyclone 10]

I disagree with the whole thing on account of the fact that identifiable risk in this instance refers to people who smoke.

That wasn't the question I asked, it's a simple question, it makes no reference to smokers.

Do you think that children should be placed in environments where a risk has been identified?

There is no risk if the people who smoke do not do so in the presence of the child so therefore there is no identifiable risk.

How do you go from that big if to an absolute statement about risk? Wishful thinking?

There is no way of identifying which parents may smoke in front of their children so all parents who smoke are banned from adopting which leaves a lot of children who could be in loving homes being left in care.

That's the situation, yes.

 

I think you are a complete and utter prat for implying that if someone will not give up smoking then they cannot love their children very much

Nobody has implied that, but think whatever you like.

and if that is not what you are saying then I appologise, but it is what seems to come across from your comments. Being a smoker does not by default make you a bad parent.

No, but applying to foster as a smoker puts you in a category of where children placed with you would be placed at risk.

[Cyclone 10]

Bottom line is smokers will defend their "Right" to smoke as much as drivers will defend theirs to drive all over the place and make unneccesary trips.

 

Both are harmful in their own sweet little ways.

 

Nobody is discussing the right of smokers to smoke though, this is about if they exercise that right whether it should stop them fostering children.

[SnailyBoy 10]

There is a slight error. Smokers who are desperate to addopt or foster can easily lie about their habit.

 

Carbon Monoxide levels in a breath test are a dead giveaway.

[redwhine 10]

I blame Humphrey Bogart for my smoking from the age of thirteen, Bogie was never without a Camel in his gob, which probably contributed to that famous lisp in his voice. I was scandalized by the fact that he'd chuck it away after two drags then light another, while I had to finish my Woodbine with a pin in it so I could get two more puffs:)

Oh! The imagery!

 

Something that has come down someone's nose (...or maybe the wheels on a railway carriage?...) fellating a ship of the desert.

 

Not to mention wearing women's clothes whilst performing acupuncture in an attempt to procure multiple homosexual acts.

 

 

...or maybe