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.
Nah. In my opinion if you want public healthcare then people have a responsibility to take care of themselves so not to unnecessarily drain public funding. Something I feel people don’t have a good understanding of is just how much we can save in healthcare costs by restricting unhealthy things; such as high sugar content consumables, alcohol and non medical drugs. Assuming you have a society that values public health of course, in the land of the free letting people reduce their life expectancy might do some real good on the global stage.
E: I also want to add that restrictions on unhealthy things doesn’t just save money, it saves lives; both from people not directly killing themselves through activities like smoking and indirectly from people not taking up space and resources within the healthcare system for selfish short term vanity projects.
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.
Wait, are you the poster from ages ago who made loads of posts about Superman & Lois?
Oh my god you are! I love when Lemmy has resident nutters, it’s really fun.
Best part of this site honestly. I hope there’s someone out there who recognises and appreciates my shitposts
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.
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?
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.
So what you’re saying is no more football and no more driving?
Honestly I think it’s reasonable for parents to discourage their kids from doing drugs to protect them from harm, which is their job. But that same logic extended to adults doesn’t track.
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
Honey, you do not know me.
Honey, I know you already forgot the pandemic
You make some really weird assumptions.
You make the same claims as anti-vaxxers lol
dangerous drug that gives them super human powers that could kill your child
harmless drug that makes them high and can’t kill your child
There’s a bit of a difference, of course a parent wouldn’t want their underage (super?) kid risking their life, especially if it could be stunting or affecting development of their actual powers?
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
