[r9etb]

You didn't answer the question. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a child can be shown to be suffering harm from her parents' smoking. Are you going to claim that the parents' property rights are more important than the child's health?

That would be a case where property rights are in tension with the rights of other people to not be harmed. Children are good subjects for the example due to their inability to voluntarily leave the premises.

[Mears]

The government does not belong in the child rearing business,period.

Letting the government decide how to raise a child is putting us on a very slippery slope indeed,in fact it's frightening.

[Madame Dufarge]

That would be a case where property rights are in tension with the rights of other people to not be harmed. Children are good subjects for the example due to their inability to voluntarily leave the premises.

Parents who didn't restrain from smoking where the health of their children was proven to be in jeopardy would be irresponsible.

[Publius6961]

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a child can be shown to be suffering harm from her parents' smoking. Are you going to claim that the parents' property rights are more important than the child's health?

Suppose that a child has been shown not to be affected by her parent's smoking (as has demonstrably happened in tens of millions of homes) are you going to claim that your neuroses are more important than my family's privacy?

[CSM]

"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a child can be shown to be suffering harm from her parents' ________."

You fill it in with smoking. How about if we fill it in with dietary program, genes, hobbies, etc? At what point would you like us to liscence people to have children? According to your logic, if an individual has any genetic disease they should not be allowed to have children.