Submitted 6 days ago by Grimreaper@sopuli.xyz to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
I was rewatching the TV show Superman & Lois. In that show, Clark and Lois have twin boys who are 16. Their son Jonathan Kent was taking an illegal super drug called “X-Kryptonite”, and Lois and Clark blew up at him. I wonder if they have this energy for abortion because I know damn well Clark and Lois are pro-choice.
So I hate how they violated Jon’s autonomy.
and this applies to real life too; “my body, my choice” should apply to drug use too.
When you deny someone an abortion, you’re denying them healthcare.
When a parent denies their underage child, with a brain that is still developing, hard drugs I think that is appropriate parenting. Taking hard drugs probably has limited social or medical benefit, if any.
So when a parent denies their underage child drugs they are essentially protecting them (from themselves) whereas if they deny an abortion they are taking away a future, if you consider the fully formed person autonomous.
Not really comparable if you scratch beyond the surface.
Drugs people use illegally have overlap with drugs prescribed as medicine, like amphetamines for adhd and opioids for pain management. Who gets to decide what is healthcare on behalf of the individual? Doctors, parents, governments, insurance companies? There is a lot of room between them to get it wrong. In all of these cases authorities are claiming to be protecting people from making what they say is the wrong choice. Of course it is in some cases, and parents probably should be pressuring their children not to take dangerous drugs, especially for reasons that are not healthcare. But if there are authorities that deny that something is healthcare, and that’s contested, “my body, my choice” is a slogan that implies it should be the individual that decides.
When a parent denies their underage child, with a brain that is still developing, hard drugs I think that is appropriate parenting
I am “pro-choice” with anything as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else (but you). From my skin inwards is my total jurisdiction; it was JONATHAN’S BODY. Not Clark, not Lois. If Jon wants to inhale an alien space narcotic or snort cocaine, that should be his right.
Again Clark and Lois violated Jonathan’s autonomy, and that was wrong, especially for Superman, who stands for “humans having free will”, and Lois Lane, a woman who worked her way up in a male-dominated environment and who fights for “truth and justice”.
Also, it’s just bad writing because Superman should have better things to do than whine and complain about how his son, who doesn’t even have powers at the time, is taking an illegal drug. Big fucking whoop.
I’m curious, do you think parents should stop a two-year-old from swallowing LEGO blocks, which they could choke on? The two-year-old is making a choice that they want the LEGO block in their throat. However, they don’t understand that it can kill them.
From the perspective of the parents of a teenager, it is their job to protect their child from dangers the child may not fully understand. I think the teenager can be reasoned with and it can be explained to them why they shouldn’t do drugs and then they can make an informed choice, but it is debatable how much a teenager can be trusted to make a responsible decision.
Also, aren’t you the one who wants grown adults to be protected from dating people older than them? But you think teenagers are old enough to make decisions about mind-altering substances and their parents should leave them alone regarding that and almost everything else?
Wait, are you the poster from ages ago who made loads of posts about Superman & Lois?
After a certain age, it absolutely should. The false equivalence is shown by the applicable ages.
So if a 13 year old girl, say, gets pregnant, it’s easy to see how carrying the baby to term and being a teen mom will drastically affect her future, so if she says she does not wish to be pregnant and a mother, it’s fine for her to request an abortion, ethically, because her life is up to her to decide.
The thing about drugs is, they are a strictly elective (whereas the 13 year old could have been forced to have sex) pastime. And the mind is still developing until around age 25.
As an advocate for “my body, my choice,” I am pro-choice (while having pro-life morality to an extent). I am also pro-legalisation of drugs, or at least decriminialisation. I also support medically assisted end-of-life measures when a person has something that cannot be cured or a condition that will never improve. I believe they have the right to make that call.
So yes, it should apply to drug use, too — at a certain age.
I think it’s more like:
If you think you can deny a child an abortion, do you think you can deny them an appendectomy? Why not?
As far as drugs go I do believe there should be “adventure businesses” for people who want to experiment or experience alternate realities. It might not be the best idea but way better than making it illegal and all the back alley violent and desperate business that goes on.
I haven’t seen the show but I think the way parents ought to react to their children using drugs is to educate them about the effects of drugs. Blowing up at your children rarely does any good.
If your daughter wants an abortion, it is also good to educate them about the risks and help them make an informed choice.
So yes, in both cases people should make their own choices but parents and society should help them make informed choices
jeffw@lemmy.world 6 days ago
To an extent sure. But when you start clogging up Emergency Rooms, you start impacting other people. Public health should be the motivation behind drug regulation.
hzl@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
So what you’re saying is no more football and no more driving.
jeffw@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Responsible drug use and seatbelts are completely different. If you really think that addiction to a substance is similar to driving, you’ve never actually heard an addict. Maybe you talked to one, but you didn’t hear