Foetal alcohol syndrome case dismissed by Court of Appeal [Archive]

View Full Version : Foetal alcohol syndrome case dismissed by Court of Appeal

Red Son

4th December 2014, 12:02

Article from the BBC - (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30327893)

A child born with foetal alcohol syndrome is not legally entitled to compensation after her mother drank excessively while pregnant, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
The seven-year-old girl was born with severe brain damage and is now in care.
Lawyers argued her mother had poisoned her foetus but appeal judges ruled she had not committed a criminal offence.
The case was brought by a council in the North West of England, which cannot be named for legal reasons.
It had been argued the woman ignored warnings and drank a "grossly excessive" amount of alcohol while pregnant.
She consumed eight cans of strong lager and half a bottle of vodka a day, the court heard.
The Court of Appeal had to rule on whether or not the girl was entitled to a payout from the government-funded Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme as a victim of crime.
In their ruling, the three appeal judges said: "The central reason is that we have held that a mother who is pregnant, and who drinks to excess despite knowledge of the potential harmful consequence to the child of doing so, is not guilty of a criminal offence under our law if her child is subsequently born damaged as a result."

I'm personally pro-choice so have a view that a woman's body takes precedence when considering terminations. But in this instance, the baby is being carried to term and the mother is behaving in a way that has damaged the child irreversibly. I'm all for anyone of any gender being allowed to do what they want with their own body but something about this woman's behaviour and the ruling over it feels...off. Thoughts?

Futility Personified

4th December 2014, 15:02

It's negligence, or abuse. I have sympathy for the addict, but this is where quite simply something has to be enforced. Noone should be interfering with her right to her own body, but causing so much damage to a child is beyond the pale.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th December 2014, 18:59

Good.

I mean, the case amounts to "the state asks itself if it should pay for something, finds in favour of the state". At the same time, the principle upheld here - that the woman did not commit a crime - is an important one. If women could be sued for drinking during pregnancy, they could be sued for failed abortions and who knows what else.

Bourgeois state out of bedrooms and out of uteruses - this is the only consistent socialist line on the issue. People with defects are and will continue to be born. "Enforcing" what you think is the "proper" behaviour when it comes to pregnancy (why just the pregnancy? why not imprison Jewish couples for the increased chance that their children will have Tay-Sachs syndrome?) would not stop this, and it would only give the bourgeois state another weapon against women, particularly women workers.

synthesis

4th December 2014, 19:06

Yeah, I can't see anything good resulting from the setting of a precedent allowing the state to lock up or punish the mother of a disabled daughter.

Futility Personified

4th December 2014, 19:24

synthesis

4th December 2014, 19:30

Pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist for a minute:

What would the appropriate revolutionary response to this situation be, then?

I realize this probably looks like a cop-out but I don't consider this to be a relevant hypothetical scenario. Post-revolution, our institutions for dealing with pretty much everything about this - child care, mental health, and so on - will be so radically different that right now it's impossible to consider in any realistic sense. And conversely it's also pointless to ask people to "pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist" when addressing these circumstances in a pre-revolutionary society. It all goes hand-in-hand.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th December 2014, 19:49

If someone is drinking a crazy amount whilst they are pregnant, then they are really going to do some terrible terrible damage to the child.

Pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist for a minute:

What would the appropriate revolutionary response to this situation be, then?

I don't think we can "pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist". And if we can, what would be the point? This case did not take place in isolation from class society; it happened in capitalism, and as such, we need to take a class position - one that recognises the allegedly benevolent bourgeois state as the greatest enemy of workers, or women and minorities.

But let's say the bourgeois state doesn't exist. What then? That surely depends on what exists instead of the bourgeois state. If we're talking about the socialist society, and you're asking me what the response of that society should be, the answer is: nothing. Enforcing how much people can drink during pregnancy is far beyond "the administration of things and the direction of processes of production". People would presumably have to negotiate these things between themselves - and needless to say the quality of life of disabled persons would be incomparably higher.

Futility Personified

4th December 2014, 20:08

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th December 2014, 20:18

You both have a point, to be fair.

But as it'd seem anti-climactic to leave it there, would it not be wisest for there to be some sort of community based intervention, examining the causes of the alcoholism, and what would prevent or mitigate it to benefit both the mother and child?

I think that would be sensible.

I think that would comprise social intervention into the private life of a member of society, something socialism would do away with (again, the tasks of the social power in socialism are purely technical and administrative; what Engels calls "the administration of things and direction of the processes of production").

RedBlackStar

4th December 2014, 20:19

I don't think we can "pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist". And if we can, what would be the point?

Because it's important to theorise how society would deal with these situations in the 'Utopia' (for want of a better word) which you believe. Doing otherwise is dismissive.

But as it'd seem anti-climactic to leave it there, would it not be wisest for there to be some sort of community based intervention, examining the causes of the alcoholism, and what would prevent or mitigate it to benefit both the mother and child?

Good line of thought, but what consequences would be in place if this intervention is rejected?

synthesis

4th December 2014, 20:25

Because it's important to theorise how society would deal with these situations in the 'Utopia' (for want of a better word) which you believe. Doing otherwise is dismissive.

I don't think that's the case and if you remember me from the other thread I'm not the type of person who avoids or dodges questions like these. Asking people to "pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist" in relation to a situation like this is sort of the same as asking people, "What would have been the result of WWII if Stalin wore a funny wig?" which every historian knows is a no-no. It's impossible to extract the situation from the context that produced it.

Futility Personified

4th December 2014, 22:47

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th December 2014, 23:22

870:

It would be a social intrusion, but something that could be considered arguably necessary. A lot of the pissing in the wind on this board comes from different definitions of socialism and we'll be hitting cross purposes soon so...

Communal relations would intensify in a classless society, once all divisions imposed by capital are overcome, it is something that would not be improbable. It would be inevitable that disputes would occur, so people would need to form their own social councils to deal with these things. That doesn't seem to me, to be a violation of socialist society. It's nothing to do with the MOP, but it is directly democratic, so I don't think i'm the only one in seeing this as a reasonable thing to envision.

I think that what socialism is fairly uncontroversial, at least for Marxists and anarchists. Obviously there are people who think Sweden is socialist, but we're not talking with them right now. Socialism is a classless, stateless society resting on social control of the means of production. This statelessness is not a matter of definition (i.e. we retain all of the mechanisms of class society but don't call them a state because there are no longer classes); it means the absence of coercive mechanisms, what Engels called "government over men". So in socialism, there is no one to tell you how much you can drink, what genders you can fuck etc. I think that is one of the positive sides of socialism - and I feel odd explaining this to an audience composed mostly of self-proclaimed libertarians, as an authoritarian.

As for direct democracy, I don't think it has anything to do with socialism. It's merely one form of class rule in bourgeois republics, that gets inordinately fetishised. Having society - or indeed, a "social council" (don't get me started on the fetishism of decentralisation or we'll be here all night) - vote on what I can drink doesn't sound particularly appealing to me. Socialism also abolishes democracy, as a form of class rule, even if what decisions need to be made in socialism are made on the basis of social consensus, making them "democratic" in some sense (and really, there is nothing wrong with representation).

Futility Personified

5th December 2014, 00:00

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th December 2014, 00:20

I think it's important to remember that there are spectrums and strands of ideology bound by common doctrines, so a socialism adhering to a direct democracy style of decision making is reasonable.

How I'd see the regulation of alcohol in relation to the original point is similar to the regulation of other intoxicants. Would a community of people, regardless of rural or urban space / size, see that it is in all of their interests for people to be completely munted at all times? Most sensible proponents of drug legalization agree that there should be certain constraints in place.

Assuming that people would want to regulate production of things open to abuse, why wouldn't they want to regulate consumption if it was causing severe harm to someone? Namely, the offspring who would be harmed by the alcohol.

That depends on what you mean by "a direct democracy style of decision making". If you are talking about plebiscites etc., then yes, I suppose the socialist society could decide on the allocation of targets and resources in such a matter - although it seems stupidly unworkable to me. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that if you mean that everything will be up for vote, then no, I would say that is in no way compatible with socialism. It would be an imitation of class society at best.

Again, I would think it is fairly uncontroversial that the socialist society would not regulate production in the sense of banning the production of certain products if there is a demand for such products, nor would it regulate consumption. Perhaps that is not "sensible" as the term is commonly understood in political discourse, but neither is the complete socialisation of the means of production.

And where do you draw the line? What do you think your "social council" can ban, exactly? Food? Drink? Sexual acts? It all sounds quite unappealing to me. And it amounts to the continuation of state power beyond the point where the class basis for such power has disappeared.

People already "harm" their children, for example when one Ashkenazi Jew has a child with another - thus increasing the risk of Tay-Sachs. Yet we would all oppose attempts to control sex among Jews because we recognise (I would hope) that these are private matters that the people involved need to sort out between themselves. So why are things different when it comes to women? And as I said, in the socialist society, anyone born "disabled" (what an unpleasant term, although I suppose it is justified) will have a quality of life that is at least comparable to those who are not "disabled".

Futility Personified

5th December 2014, 00:50

Illegalitarian

5th December 2014, 03:12

Just remember that 870 is in the vast minority of socialists on this position and that most of us do, in fact, advocate a decentralized model of production and distribution where work place and communal decisions would in fact be made, when needed, in a democratic fashion.

As for the OP, There's a huge difference between having an abortion and doing something that you're fully aware will most likely irrevocably damage a human you fully intend on bringing into the world.

If one wants an abortion they should get one and have direct, easy access to such a procedure, but being so cruel as to intentionally destroy a fetus you intend to bring into the world, bringing them into a world where they will suffer greatly, should not be condoned.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

5th December 2014, 03:21

I think that would comprise social intervention into the private life of a member of society
Sometimes intervention is necessary, especially in defense of a third party such as a child. Without that, you don't actually have a society.

RedBlackStar

5th December 2014, 08:45

I don't think that's the case and if you remember me from the other thread I'm not the type of person who avoids or dodges questions like these. Asking people to "pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist" in relation to a situation like this is sort of the same as asking people, "What would have been the result of WWII if Stalin wore a funny wig?" which every historian knows is a no-no. It's impossible to extract the situation from the context that produced it.

Do you believe that addictions are a product of our society and wouldn't exist in a Socialist one? If that's the case then yes I can see why you'd think this was extracting from context. I on the other hand think, while they are often caused by Capitalism's implications, they're not exclusive to it.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th December 2014, 12:30

I don't see how that would imitate class society, to be honest. As long as the MOP aren't being monopolized by anyone, that they remain in common ownership, if there are things that people will decide to regulate for themselves by referendum (and yes, i'm going to vaguely opine that the internet or some form of electronic communication is a means to doing it) that doesn't mean that an exploitative class will surface.

There is more to class society than ownership of the means of production. Ownership, the relations of production and so on - this is the economic basis of a particular form of class society. But on this basis there exists an entire superstructure, including the state, that is, coercive public power, "government over men" as Engels puts it.

Without the economic basis, there is no possibility of the superstructure surviving for a significant time; therefore, it's not that I think that people in socialism will attempt to regulate the private lives of other people "by referendum" (why the fetishism of referenda?) and therefore imitate state society, I think that because this would be a laughable imitation of state society, it will not happen.

Again, Engels put it best in "On Authority":

"We have seen, besides, that the material conditions of production and circulation inevitably develop with large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture, and increasingly tend to enlarge the scope of this authority. Hence it is absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being absolutely good. Authority and autonomy are relative things whose spheres vary with the various phases of the development of society. If the autonomists confined themselves to saying that the social organisation of the future would restrict authority solely to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable, we could understand each other; but they are blind to all facts that make the thing necessary and they passionately fight the world.
Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. "

So: authority is restricted to the limits within which the conditions of production render it inevitable. The public power in the socialist society is not a "stateless" government but a sort of global power and gas and water and coal and plastic and dildoes and iridium and... corporation.

Regulating consumption is something that would have to be done in certain cases. I stand by the idea that resources are finite, barring huge technological leaps that are not impossible but aren't currently foreseeable. Drug use could go either way, but assuming that no improvements are made on what we have to consume at the moment, it would be in the interests of those taking them for the supply to be at least rationed.

That's not the sort of regulation of consumption I'm talking about; rationing might be necessary for a brief (in historical terms!) period, but prohibitions on drugs, meat, whatever, are impossible in socialism.

I'm wary of saying what can and can't be banned in case we have another cannibal thread, but I think people have enough sense to be able to decide for themselves what is permissible without putting everyone at risk.

I think people have enough sense to recognise that something doesn't concern them, including what other people put in their bodies.

I'm not making an exception specifically for women, only women who are currently bearing children.

The question is, why are you doing that? You don't seem to be suggesting that society regulate every time two people of the opposite biological sexes have sex, with mandatory genetic screening and so on. So why are pregnant women an exception?

There is no way to get rid of disabled people, unless our biological science makes significant leaps in the future. And if it has, then surely we can provide disabled people with the same quality of life non-disabled people have, and getting rid of them would be the same as getting rid of people with myopia.

Alcoholism is a pretty nasty thing, so it would be something that communities would be quite wary of. If an infant is at risk, before birth or after birth, then that is something worth intervening in. Curtailing someone's right to do harm isn't exactly authoritarian.

And you don't see how this could be used to attack the prerogative of the woman to terminate her pregnancy whenever she sees fit?

Just remember that 870 is in the vast minority of socialists on this position and that most of us do, in fact, advocate a decentralized model of production and distribution where work place and communal decisions would in fact be made, when needed, in a democratic fashion.

That depends on who "most of you" are. If you're talking about Marxist socialists and revolutionary anarchists, I would guess you couldn't find five theorists of these tendencies advocating nonsense like decentralisation and self-management. If you're talking about RevLeft, then yeah, RevLeft lives in its own little bubble where tired petit-bourgeois slogans are the hottest new thing.

Illegalitarian

6th December 2014, 02:48

I guess Marx never talked about the "free and equal association of producers"

Kropotkin didn't talk about “the managers of production” in “federations of Trade Unions for the organisation of men in accordance with their different functions” or the need for “independent Communes for the territorial organisation” as well as “thousands upon thousands of free combines and societies growing up everywhere for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs."

Goldman didn't advocate "a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth" or praise the Makhnovistas or Spanish Anarchists, nor did Rocker I guess.

I'd like to see evidence that these or any other prominent thinkers aside from perhaps Bordiga who did not advocate worker's self-management, or any grouping of anarchists or socialists today who do not advocate such.

The majority of socialists don't identify with these ideas out of thin air - they are very much the ideas of the thinkers who wrote about communism, anarchism etc

The Disillusionist

6th December 2014, 05:21

There's an easy way to punish this woman for irresponsibly damaging a child without telling her what to do with her body: Make her pay for the child's care as much as she possibly can without starving to death. It's a natural consequence that doesn't requre any arbitrary decision making, because I think we can all agree that parents are obligated to take care of their kids.

As for punishing women who drink while pregnant, as a way of preventing that from happening... that won't help anything. The vast majority of people in the US already know that drinking is a bad idea when pregnant, and yet this happens anyway. Of course, that doesn't mean that we as a society have to like it. I say shun the hell out of her, get her with the social stigma, but don't attack her with the state.

Lily Briscoe

6th December 2014, 05:36

There's an easy way to punish this woman for irresponsibly damaging a child without telling her what to do with her body: Make her pay for the child's care as much as she possibly can without starving to death.

I say shun the hell out of her, get her with the social stigmaWow, what a top notch communist. People struggling with substance problems should be shunned, stigmatized, and forced to pay as much as they can without starving to death. Do you even think about what you're saying?

Also, the incident in the OP takes place in the UK, not the US.

Lily Briscoe

6th December 2014, 05:55

Sometimes intervention is necessary, especially in defense of a third party such as a child. Without that, you don't actually have a society.

The "child" in question is inside someone's womb though, and I don't see how supporting the state's, or "society's", right to intervene in defense of a fetus against the woman carrying it is fundamentally different from supporting abortion restrictions. From the article:

BBC News legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the case was significant because it centred on whether or not a foetus was considered a person, independent of its mother.

He said: "This case was hugely important, because campaigners argued that if the Court of Appeal had said it was possible for a mother to commit a crime by poisoning her foetus with excessive alcohol, it would have had the effect of criminalising pregnant women who drank excessively, knowing the dangers of alcohol to their foetus."

synthesis

6th December 2014, 06:02

Do you believe that addictions are a product of our society and wouldn't exist in a Socialist one? If that's the case then yes I can see why you'd think this was extracting from context. I on the other hand think, while they are often caused by Capitalism's implications, they're not exclusive to it.

Well, I think the rate of genuinely self-destructive addiction would sharply decline as our hypothetical future society grows up. There are tons of reasons why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park), but really, I just do.

But independently of that conviction, again, I still don't think it's possible to "pretend the bourgeois state doesn't exist" in this scenario. Pretty much by definition, a communist society would have to have trustworthy mechanisms for dealing with prenatal depression and addiction and anything else that led to this fucked up situation.

Basically, I don't think you can address this without saying what sort of society our hypothetical mother is living in, because that dictates the sort of care (or, in the case of the bourgeois state, the sort of punishment) she'd be receiving, a piece of information without which we ultimately can't make any decision on behalf of the child, because it is the state that is administering the decision and the state is a product of class society.

If it's a communist society, we can talk about solutions without having to overly concern ourselves with necessarily immediate distrust of the bourgeois state's motives. But if we're talking about a communist society, the conversation would have to also include the preventative measures that are inherent to a suitably empowering new society; right now it's all hypothetical anyways.

If we're not talking about a communist society, we're talking about class society and our analysis has to work that in. There is no way to analyze the situation and prepare a solution without factoring in the causal elements that led to it, as well as the elements that might complicate the application of that solution, which is why that thought problem is fundamentally a non sequitur.

The Disillusionist

6th December 2014, 06:17

Wow, what a top notch communist. People struggling with substance problems should be shunned, stigmatized, and forced to pay as much as they can without starving to death. Do you even think about what you're saying?

Also, the incident in the OP takes place in the UK, not the US.

Well, first, I'm not strictly a communist, I'm a social anarchist.

Second, I made that statement controversial because I figured it would spark some good discussion.

I believe that basically all behaviors should be tolerated, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I have nothing against substance use, and I believe that treatment is much better than punishment in the case of substance addiction.

However, actions do have consequences, and a woman irresponsibly causing permanent damage to her child is a serious action with serious consequences. That woman having to pay for her child's care is as natural a consequence as they get, though obviously if she can't pay for all of it, then additional funds should be provided (to the child, not the woman).

As for the shunning part, social stigma has a bad reputation among leftists, for good reason. However, social stigmas will never go away, because they are a society's way of ensuring that certain norms are followed. A purely Communist/Anarchist society would be operated almost entirely on social stigma as enforcement of norms, norms that say that you can't claim to own property, for example.

I can sympathize with the substance addiction, but rather than seeking treatment, this woman let her addictive behavior cause permanent damage to another human. For that reason, although that woman shouldn't be facing jail time, she also shouldn't be surprised when nobody really wants anything to do with her until she gets her act together (I'm not arguing for unconditional and permanent exile). I wouldn't personally want to be spending any time with her.

Lily Briscoe

6th December 2014, 07:07

Honestly I think substance abuse is a pretty "rational", understandable response to living in capitalist society (much more so imo than being happy and healthy and high-functioning), particularly for poor and working class people (and pregnancy certainly adds a double burden). And I think the ideology of 'personal responsibility', and the impulse to assign blame and to punish and stigmatize people for being 'irresponsible' rather than trying to understand what it is that leads people to behave in these ways, is fundamentally bourgeois. It isn't the conditions that people live in that causes them to abuse drugs, it's moral failure, it's that they're bad people etc, or so the logic goes.

Also, an individual woman "having to pay for her child's care" is only a "natural consequence" in capitalist society, which is something communists and anarchists tend to, you know, oppose...

Danielle Ni Dhighe

6th December 2014, 09:56

The "child" in question is inside someone's womb though, and I don't see how supporting the state's, or "society's", right to intervene in defense of a fetus against the woman carrying it is fundamentally different from supporting abortion restrictions. From the article:
It's a difficult question. Though I would hope a communist society would have a better way to deal with it than criminalizing women or talking about disabled children being "expensive" to care for. Addiction treatment would be freely available, and there would be an actual social support system to help people struggling with addiction, unlike under capitalism with its twisted individualism.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th December 2014, 11:25

I guess Marx never talked about the "free and equal association of producers"

He did, although he did not use the exact phrase, but I would guess that you do not know where he talked of this association, or in what context. Or that, in the same work, Marx wrote:

"I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers."

And what were the "free" producers free of? That is the question many people on RevLeft, who want to portray Marx as some sort of federalist, avoid. Obviously they are not free to do as they please in "their" workplaces - see e.g. Engels's "On Authority". They are free from class society. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kropotkin didn't talk about “the managers of production” in “federations of Trade Unions for the organisation of men in accordance with their different functions” or the need for “independent Communes for the territorial organisation” as well as “thousands upon thousands of free combines and societies growing up everywhere for the satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs."

Goldman didn't advocate "a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth" or praise the Makhnovistas or Spanish Anarchists, nor did Rocker I guess.

Assuming you have portrayed their positions correctly - and to be honest I don't feel like digging through Rocker right now - at best you have three (what did I say about you not being able to find five theorists?) figures, all from one specific tradition. Whereas it is fairly easy to prove that Marxists have never been in favour of decentralisation, federalism, self-management, whatever.

So your initial sentence is obviously false.

I'd like to see evidence that these or any other prominent thinkers aside from perhaps Bordiga who did not advocate worker's self-management, or any grouping of anarchists or socialists today who do not advocate such.

Ha, well, you might start with "Antiduhring" and Engels's account of managerial functions in the socialist society, particularly the comparison to a conductor. Or with "On Authority". Or with the "Civil War in France", where Marx lampoons decentralisation as the Montesquieuan dream of a federation of small states. Or his memorandum on "The Abolition of Landed Property" and so on.

The majority of socialists don't identify with these ideas out of thin air - they are very much the ideas of the thinkers who wrote about communism, anarchism etc

That's just the point. RevLeft is not "the majority of socialists", and trends on RevLeft have nothing to do with the composition of the socialist movement. Obviously the number of CPGB "orthodox Marxists" in the socialist movement isn't around ten percent (!), it's more around thirty out of a few million.

There's an easy way to punish this woman for irresponsibly damaging a child without telling her what to do with her body: Make her pay for the child's care as much as she possibly can without starving to death.

"Hey, I know what would be a good idea, let's take a vulnerable and probably impoverished woman and ruin her financially, that'll learn her, the stupid slut."

I mean, dude.

Well, first, I'm not strictly a communist, I'm a social anarchist.

What does that even mean? Because usually it means that the person making the statement is not in favour of the socialisation of the means of production, the abolition of the market etc.

As for the shunning part, social stigma has a bad reputation among leftists, for good reason. However, social stigmas will never go away, because they are a society's way of ensuring that certain norms are followed. A purely Communist/Anarchist society would be operated almost entirely on social stigma as enforcement of norms, norms that say that you can't claim to own property, for example.

What is it with some anarchists and their obsession with getting everyone in society to act as they want to? In socialism, any idiot who claims to own property would just be ignored. And yeah, social stigma is "society's way of ensuring that certain norms are followed". These norms are not on our side - far from this Hobbesian fevre dream about how people would kill you on the street if it wasn't for Norms and Rules and Law and Order, you're more likely to be killed or beaten by someone for breaking a bullshit, repressive, fucked-up norm. And you want to perpetuate that in the socialist society? How about no?

consuming negativity

6th December 2014, 12:26

it is shitty for her to purposefully and knowingly give her child FAS through drinking way too much during pregnancy but two wrongs don't make a right. using this as an excuse to give the state more control over women's reproductive rights would be the exact opposite of helpful or moral behavior. like strix said, this shit happens for a reason and blind moral outrage about it isn't going to lead to a positive solution for anyone.

Art Vandelay

6th December 2014, 15:29

This is a very thought provoking case, one which I've done a lot of thinking about since I read the article. It's certainly an issue I take very seriously given the fact that I work with folks with developmental disabilities and have seen the effects of FAS first hand. Regardless of how you think such an issue should be dealt with in any future socialist society, I think it's pretty clear that the only acceptable position for communists to take under the capitalist mode of production is for the protection of the bodily autonomy of women, regardless of the context of the situation. I mean what about women who smoke during pregnancy? Or women with eating disorders, who put their unborn child at risk by not getting proper nourishment? Do we support the bourgeois state intervening in these cases as well, or do we uphold the right of women to bodily autonomy? I think it's obvious what line communists take.

I find it interesting, although not all that surprising I suppose, that a handful of posters here have a position which is to the right wing of the UK courts.

Palmares

6th December 2014, 16:08

It's distressing how widespread foetal alcohol syndrome is becoming. However, I don't think it's productive to focus blame on the individual - the mother. Really, they are the victim here. Life as a working class woman is undoubtedly hard, and falling pregnant would make things more challenging. Especially if you have substance abuse problems. Hell, if you even know you're pregnant.

Let's not pretend these all these women we are talking about are causing this syndrome in premeditation. It's simply not true. As I said, some may not realise they are pregnant, whereas others likely are suffering from various material and psychological problems. They deserve our empathy and help, not our scorn.

I'm not sure which communities are most affected by this elsewhere, but where I am, it is most prevalent in Indigenous communities. I need not re-count to to you the extensive damage colonisation has reaped on these folk, and how it manifests in contemporary times. The point is, this affects the most vulnerable and oppressed communities. In some communities, whether its due to education or isolation or whatever, I dunno, but they simply don't know drinking would affect their children - until they were born. So you then find these particular communities with a generation of children with this syndrome.

Obviously, it's complicated. And trying to prevent a single individual from not consuming alcohol whilst pregnant won't change a culture. When it comes down to it, you can't tell an individual what to do with their own body. In the end, as long as the root causes of the social problems exist, so do the symptoms. But at the same time, I have seen certain communities affected by this try to empower themselves and work through these problems together. When you have a whole generation of children with foetal alcohol syndrome, there simply is no other way.

Palmares

6th December 2014, 16:19

Some links related to my last post:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/grog-hits-indigenous-babies-20121111-296hs.html

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/197/1/aboriginal-women-alcohol-and-road-fetal-alcohol-spectrum-disorder

brigadista

6th December 2014, 18:12

This case was brought by a local authority in order to obtain funding - it had no merit whatsoever and was bound to fail - the local authority paid a qc - v expensive from public funds for a hopeless case in order to exploit the criminal injuries compensation scheme - no doubt the woman was also failed by the state - the case was destined to fail - find it puzzling though on a lw forum to see people resorting to the " individual responsibility" blaming tactic - this is about local authority cuts -

The Disillusionist

6th December 2014, 19:15

"Hey, I know what would be a good idea, let's take a vulnerable and probably impoverished woman and ruin her financially, that'll learn her, the stupid slut."

I mean, dude.

What is it with some anarchists and their obsession with getting everyone in society to act as they want to? In socialism, any idiot who claims to own property would just be ignored. And yeah, social stigma is "society's way of ensuring that certain norms are followed". These norms are not on our side - far from this Hobbesian fevre dream about how people would kill you on the street if it wasn't for Norms and Rules and Law and Order, you're more likely to be killed or beaten by someone for breaking a bullshit, repressive, fucked-up norm. And you want to perpetuate that in the socialist society? How about no?

Woah, woah, woah, I am NOT calling anyone a slut. This has nothing to do with gender prejudice, and I'm not gonna let you pin that on me. If a man were to permanently harm a child somehow as a direct result of his own alcoholism, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and he'd be facing far more severe consequences, for good reason.

Also, having a kid tends to ruin you financially, because they are expensive, especially if you've damaged them to the point that they require constant care. Expecting a parent to provide for that care is not unreasonable at all. As I said, there are consequences for actions.

And consequences are not in any way just a "capitalist" concept, that's the idea I was referring to back in that other thread when I called individualist anarchy the "eat candy all day and never get sick" approach. Believe it or not, people will still screw up under any system, and those screw ups will cause direct results. You can't stomp on a guys foot and expect him to not get mad at you because you're both Communists, you can't put your hand on a stove and expect it not to burn you because it's a Communist stove. You can't have a human being placed under your care and just let it die because you would rather be off drinking.

Also, there will totally be addicts in any society. People do drugs because frankly, drugs are awesome. Even animals do drugs. Social conditions can create an atmosphere in which drug addiction is considerably more likely, but drug addiction will always exist in any context.

Of course, when I refer to taking the woman's resources, I'm talking about a potential option WITHIN the capitalist system she is already in, because it is capitalism that defines people by their accumulation of resources.

In an anarchist/Communist society, this woman's irresponsibility would make the kid a ward of society, forcing others to take care of it, unless they decided that it should die. Without that woman's input, the kid's survival directly depends on the generosity of others. We're not just talking about resources here, we're talking about full time care, people would be forced to take time out of their own lives to watch that woman's kid. This is still a serious issue.

The old Communist credo goes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Clearly this woman's kid is going to need a lot more than she is, and that woman doesn't really "need" anything except the basics, food, shelter, and water, and so I would advocate, as I would under a capitalist society, directing any other resources directly toward the care of the kid, rather than the woman. Or, if the woman was being an especially poor member of society, there is always the complete "ignore" option, in which she would just cease to be a member of society, and would have to find another place to get resources.

Also, you realize that ignoring someone is part of a social stigma?

Here's the google dictionary definition of "shun":

"To persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution."

You literally just advocated the same exact thing I was talking about, but with a slightly less controversial word. Looks like Socialists aren't really that much different from Anarchists (we are on the same website, after all).

Calling someone an idiot is totally applying a social stigma as well. That's why I said, stigma has a bad reputation, for good reason, but it has far more reach than people tend to assume.

synthesis

6th December 2014, 20:19

Also, there will totally be addicts in any society. People do drugs because frankly, drugs are awesome. Even animals do drugs. Social conditions can create an atmosphere in which drug addiction is considerably more likely, but drug addiction will always exist in any context.

There is a difference between people who use drugs, even to excess, and addicts. Well, they're obviously not discrete at all, but you're clearly conflating the two. People don't totally fuck up their lives and everything around them with self-destructive drug abuse if everything is already genuinely "okay." Not necessarily great, just okay.

Again, I think everything about communist society would be so radically different - in terms of societal support for people who are suffering emotionally or psychologically - that the bar for addiction would be much, much higher, reflecting the fact that there aren't social factors aggravating them and causing them to spiral out of control, but rather ameliorating them and reining them in. In the big picture, punishing the addict in the ways you're describing is probably the biggest aggravating factor for addiction.

Sharia Lawn

6th December 2014, 20:23

The case certainly shows how inexpensive it is to screech 'autonomy' anytime the issue of fetal development and women's reproductive health comes up, and to leave it at that as we smugly pat ourselves on the back for being enlightened. Certainly in a bourgeois society it is reactionary to want to grant the bourgeois state additional, or any, punitive authority regarding 'bad behaviours' it actually indirectly encourages by propping up the existing social system. That doesn't mean that society more broadly doesn't have an interest in what a woman (or a man) does with her (or his) own body's reproductive capacities, or that this interest will not become more appropriately subject to regulation in a post-revolution society. Libertarian, individualist political slogans about privacy might be tactically necessary in the present, but in the absence of a broader analysis, they leave us ill prepared for way these issues will necessarily need to be debated after we have left capitalism behind.

Illegalitarian

6th December 2014, 20:25

He did, although he did not use the exact phrase, but I would guess that you do not know where he talked of this association, or in what context. Or that, in the same work, Marx wrote:

"I say on the contrary; the social movement will lead to this decision that the land can but be owned by the nation itself. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural labourers, would be to surrender society to one exclusive class of producers."

And what were the "free" producers free of? That is the question many people on RevLeft, who want to portray Marx as some sort of federalist, avoid. Obviously they are not free to do as they please in "their" workplaces - see e.g. Engels's "On Authority". They are free from class society. Nothing more, nothing less.

You seem familiar with this piece, yet ignore what was said just before your quoted entry:

"To nationalise the land, in order to let it out in small plots to individuals or working men's societies, would, under a middle-class government, only engender a reckless competition among themselves and thus result in a progressive increase of "Rent" which, in its turn, would afford new facilities to the appropriators of feeding upon the producers."

"under a middle class government" is a very good indicator that Marx is not describing a post-revolutionary society in this piece, but rather, modern concepts of property in the bourgeois democratic state.

This is not where Marx mentions this "free association of producers", which is more or less exactly what he called it.

The Disillusionist

6th December 2014, 20:31

There is a difference between people who use drugs, even to excess, and addicts. Well, they're obviously not discrete at all, but you're clearly conflating the two. People don't totally fuck up their lives and everything around them with self-destructive drug abuse if everything is already genuinely "okay." Not necessarily great, just okay.

Again, I think everything about communist society would be so radically different - in terms of societal support for people who are suffering emotionally or psychologically - that the bar for addiction would be much, much higher, reflecting the fact that there aren't social factors aggravating them and causing them to spiral out of control, but rather ameliorating them and reining them in. In the big picture, punishing the addict in the ways you're describing is probably the biggest aggravating factor for addiction.

I'm not arguing for the punishment of addicts simply for being addicts, I'm arguing for the punishment of people who harm children, whether they are addicts or not. I don't believe in ignoring everything a person has done, just because they were addicted while doing it. I don't accept addiction as a legitimate excuse for harming another person.

Also, I agree but I disagree, better social conditions, as I said, would decrease addiction rates. But people will also always be clinically depressed. There is no such thing as "okay", all kinds of people have fallen from "okay" lives to miserable lives because they were pressured to try, for example, meth, and became chemically addicted. A lot of it has to do with personality as well. Pleasure seeking "adrenaline junkies", for example, are more likely to become addicted. And lets not forget that drugs are chemically addictive, not just addictive on a personal level. If you are using heroine for example, chances are that you're chemically addicted, whether you started using it for fun or as self-treatment, you still ended up in the same place.

The Disillusionist

6th December 2014, 20:44

It's distressing how widespread foetal alcohol syndrome is becoming. However, I don't think it's productive to focus blame on the individual - the mother. Really, they are the victim here. Life as a working class woman is undoubtedly hard, and falling pregnant would make things more challenging. Especially if you have substance abuse problems. Hell, if you even know you're pregnant.

Let's not pretend these all these women we are talking about are causing this syndrome in premeditation. It's simply not true. As I said, some may not realise they are pregnant, whereas others likely are suffering from various material and psychological problems. They deserve our empathy and help, not our scorn.

Again, I agree but I also disagree. There has to be some personal accountability. Otherwise we might as well just call everyone the victim of circumstance: no more protesting against corporate overlords, because they were socially pressured to crush their workers; no more protesting against fascists because they are simply reacting to social tensions around them.

Life is hard. It will always be hard. Even under a Communist/anarchist system, it might be less hard, but it will still be hard. As a result, I think that we should have compassion for each other, and help each other through life. However, once a person has harmed another person through their actions, as I've stated, there are consequences. There need to be consequences.

I also agree that in some cases, especially in some indigenous contexts, women aren't properly educated about the role of alcohol in pregnancy. In those situations, the context should be considered. However, I would imagine that in the UK, as in the US, the vast majority of women know that it's a bad idea. And it's not like this woman was drinking a beer a day, she was drinking vast quantities of alcohol.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th December 2014, 00:54

Woah, woah, woah, I am NOT calling anyone a slut. This has nothing to do with gender prejudice, and I'm not gonna let you pin that on me.

If you were merely expressing your concern about the kid, I might believe you, but your actual post borders on weird punishment fantasy. Let's be clear, here: you described with glee how a woman needs to be brought to the brink of starvation because you disagreed with what she did during her pregnancy. And this in the context of the deeply misogynist capitalist society.

Now, you claim that:

If a man were to permanently harm a child somehow as a direct result of his own alcoholism, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, and he'd be facing far more severe consequences, for good reason.

Is that really the case? First we have to swallow the notion that foetal alcohol syndrome constitutes harm. But that is not at all consistent with how we usually treat these cases; we don't say two poor people are harming their child by conceiving, although it's probable that the child will have a less than ideal life. Or two Jewish people whose child has an increased risk of Tay-Sachs.

This is one of the two things that bother me about some of the responses on this thread: when a woman exercises her prerogative to bodily autonomy in a way that does not appeal to some people, they take out their torches and pitchforks. At the same time, no one is arguing for forced genetic screening or punishing people who have children while impoverished - for good reason, too, but then at least have some consistency here.

Second, from my understanding of Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, the most common symptoms are a slightly changed facial structure and intellectual disability. I find it slightly unsettling that the birth of such a child is treated as a tragedy, particularly when talking about the socialist society. Someone born with FAS, like someone born with Down's Syndrome etc., can still lead a happy life (probably not in capitalism, but then again, neither can people born into poverty for the most part). Of course, to the bourgeoisie these people are beneath contempt as they can't be efficient wage slaves, but I would expect self-proclaimed socialists to think twice before writing them off.

But let's say all cases of FAS are like this one was, apparently. Why not talk about improving the quality of life for these people? Why do people need to find someone to blame and then take out their frustrations on them?

Also, having a kid tends to ruin you financially, because they are expensive, especially if you've damaged them to the point that they require constant care. Expecting a parent to provide for that care is not unreasonable at all. As I said, there are consequences for actions.

Good grief. Does it ever occur to you that you sound the same as any "personal responsibility" conservative? Using this sort of argument, why not just slash all safety nets? I mean, there are consequences for actions. Why have socialism at all? Socialism, after all, means society providing for its members to the point that they can well afford to be "irresponsible" from the viewpoint of a 21st century capitalist or petit-bourgeois, not some Protestant-work-ethic universal poorhouse and prison.

Of course, when I refer to taking the woman's resources, I'm talking about a potential option WITHIN the capitalist system she is already in, because it is capitalism that defines people by their accumulation of resources.

In an anarchist/Communist society, this woman's irresponsibility would make the kid a ward of society, forcing others to take care of it, unless they decided that it should die. Without that woman's input, the kid's survival directly depends on the generosity of others. We're not just talking about resources here, we're talking about full time care, people would be forced to take time out of their own lives to watch that woman's kid. This is still a serious issue.

Guess what? There are people who want to take care of various "disabled" people, and in fact do so for nothing or almost nothing, even in capitalism. In socialism, they would have all the resources they need.

And of course, in socialism, the child would already be a "ward of society" as the family would have withered away.

The old Communist credo goes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Clearly this woman's kid is going to need a lot more than she is, and that woman doesn't really "need" anything except the basics, food, shelter, and water, and so I would advocate, as I would under a capitalist society, directing any other resources directly toward the care of the kid, rather than the woman.

And there we have it, Marx's description of the higher phase of the communist society has been reduced to the principle of the poorhouse. Now perhaps you need to be reminded of the context of this quote:

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

And if you think the "needs" that Marx talks about are the bare requirements of reproducing one's own labour-power, then I can say with some certainty that you don't understand a word of Marx. In fact, how did the old man himself put it:

"The crudest methods (and instruments) of human labour are coming back: the treadmill of the Roman slaves, for instance, is the means of production, the means of existence, of many English workers. It is not only that man has no human needs – even his animal needs cease to exist. The Irishman no longer knows any need now but the need to eat, and indeed only the need to eat potatoes and scabby potatoes at that, the worst kind of potatoes. But in each of their industrial towns England and France have already a little Ireland. The savage and the animal have at least the need to hunt, to roam, etc. – the need of companionship. The simplification of the machine, of labour is used to make a worker out of the human being still in the making, the completely immature human being, the child – whilst the worker has become a neglected child. The machine accommodates itself to the weakness of the human being in order to make the weak human being into a machine.

How the multiplication of needs and of the means (of their satisfaction) breeds the absence of needs and of means is demonstrated by the political economist (and by the capitalist: in general it is always empirical businessmen we are talking about when we refer to political economists, (who represent) their scientific creed and form of existence) as follows:

(1) By reducing the worker’s need to the barest and most miserable level of physical subsistence, and by reducing his activity to the most abstract mechanical movement; thus he says: Man has no other need either of activity or of enjoyment. For he declares that this life, too, is human life and existence.

(2) By counting the most meagre form of life (existence) as the standard, indeed, as the general standard – general because it is applicable to the mass of men. He turns the worker into an insensible being lacking all needs, just as he changes his activity into a pure abstraction from all activity. To him, therefore, every luxury of the worker seems to be reprehensible, and everything that goes beyond the most abstract need – be it in the realm of passive enjoyment, or a manifestation of activity – seems to him a luxury. Political economy, this science of wealth, is therefore simultaneously the science of renunciation, of want, of saving and it actually reaches the point where it spares man the need of either fresh air or physical exercise. This science of marvellous industry is simultaneously the science of asceticism, and its true ideal is the ascetic but extortionate miser and the ascetic but productive slave. Its moral ideal is the worker who takes part of his wages to the savings-bank, and it has even found ready-made a servile art which embodies this pet idea: it has been presented, bathed in sentimentality, on the stage. Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice. The worker may only have enough for him to want to live, and may only want to live in order to have that."

Or, if the woman was being an especially poor member of society, there is always the complete "ignore" option, in which she would just cease to be a member of society, and would have to find another place to get resources.

What amazing things one learns on RevLeft. For example, one can be "an especially poor member" of the socialist society. And for displeasing the Lord Comrade High-everything-else, there is "always the option" of exiling someone from society into their certain death. This isn't worrying at all.

Also, you realize that ignoring someone is part of a social stigma?

Here's the google dictionary definition of "shun":

"To persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution."

You literally just advocated the same exact thing I was talking about, but with a slightly less controversial word. Looks like Socialists aren't really that much different from Anarchists (we are on the same website, after all).

Perhaps you should read the sentence in question again. For the tragically confused, if someone claims to own a piece of property, society will simply ignore that claim, as it ignored the claims of one Norton, Emperor of the United States. It will not conduct an organised bullying campaign that any actual socialist could only view in horror and disgust.

You seem familiar with this piece, yet ignore what was said just before your quoted entry:

"To nationalise the land, in order to let it out in small plots to individuals or working men's societies, would, under a middle-class government, only engender a reckless competition among themselves and thus result in a progressive increase of "Rent" which, in its turn, would afford new facilities to the appropriators of feeding upon the producers."

"under a middle class government" is a very good indicator that Marx is not describing a post-revolutionary society in this piece, but rather, modern concepts of property in the bourgeois democratic state.

Here is the entire immediate context of the quote:

"France has often been alluded to, but with its peasantry proprietorship it is farther off the nationalization of land than England with its landlordism. In France, it is true, the soil is accessible to all who can buy it, but this very faculty has brought about the division of land into small plots cultivated by men with small means and mainly thrown on the resources of the bodily labor of both themselves and their families. This form of landed property and the piecemeal cultivation necessitated by it not only excludes all appliance of modern agricultural improvements, but simultaneously converts the tiller himself into the most decided enemy of all social progress, and above all, of the nationalization of the land. Enchained to the soil upon which he has to spend all his vital energies in order to get a relatively small return, bound to give away the greater part of his produce to the state in the form of taxes, to the law tribe in the form of judiciary costs, and to the usurer in the form of interest; utterly ignorant of the social movement outside his petty field of action; he still clings with frantic fondness to his spot of soil and his merely nominal proprietorship in the same. In this way, the French peasant has been thrown into a most fatal antagonism to the industrial working class. Peasantry proprietorship being thus the greatest obstacle to the "nationalization of land". France, in its present state, is certainly not the place where we must look for a solution of this great problem. To nationalize the land and let it out in small plots to individuals or workingmen's societies would, under a middle-class government, only bring about a reckless competition among them, and cause a certain increase of "rent", and thus lend new facilities to the appropriators for feeding upon the producers.

At the International Congress in Brussels, in 1868, one of my friends said:
"Small private property is doomed by the verdict of science; great private property by justice. There remains then but one alternative. The soil must become the property of rural associations, or the property of the whole nation. The future will decide the question."

I say, on the contrary:

"The future will decide that the land cannot be own but nationally. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural laborers would be to surrender all society to one exclusive class of producers. The nationalization of land will work a complete change in the relations between labor and capital and finally do away altogether with capitalist production, whether industrial or rural. Only then the class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis from which they originate and society will be transformed into an association of 'producers'. To live upon other people's labor will become a thing of the past. There will no longer exist a government nor a state distinct from society itself."

Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production will gradually be organized in the most effective form. National centralization of the means of production will become the natural basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers consciously acting upon a common and rational plan. Such is the goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending."

The anecdote about Marx's friend at the Brussels congress rules out the possibility that Marx was talking about private property when talking about centralisation of the means of production, national (today we would say social) ownership of land etc.

Nor could Marx have meant that the bourgeois state will centralise the means of production and then the socialist society will disperse them. In fact, years later, Engels would attack Proudhon and Duhring for just this sort of idea:

"The means of production accumulated in the past have therefore been centralised in the hands of society only in order that all means of production accumulated in the future may once again be dispersed in the hands of individuals. One knocks to pieces one’s own premises; one has arrived at a pure absurdity."

The Disillusionist

7th December 2014, 05:55

You have quite the vivid imagination. First I'm a vulgar sexist, and now I'm a gleeful psychopath.... I will admit though, that having seen the destructive consequences of fetal alcohol syndrome and parental negligence, I am somewhat bitter about the topic.

Fetal alcohol syndrome occurs on a spectrum, with the worst end of that spectrum involving severe mental retardation. It is a tragedy, and it often ruins a child's potential forever. And unlike genetic disorders or environmental conditions, it is completely and easily preventable simply by not drinking. Unlike other birth conditions, it is the direct result of choice. As for minor cases of FAS, those kids don't require nearly as much care, and so the natural consequence is much smaller for the parent.

As for the "personal responsibility thing" being conservative..... okay, I believe that a person has responsibility for his/her own actions. Does that make me a conservative? I'm still a social anarchist, so I doubt the conservatives would be all that excited to welcome me into their ranks.

I recognize that people are influenced by their environment and the socioeconomic conditions they were born into. I completely support social programs, because they have to equalize opportunity. However, I still believe that people have choices to make, and when they make choices that negatively affect other people, there are, and should be, consequences. I don't care about other actions, people can act as irresponsibly as they want, in my opinion, as long as that irresponsibility doesn't hurt anyone else.

Drunk driving is a good comparison here. Say a man gets drunk and crashes his car into a family car, permanently disabling a child. Do we just ignore the situation and expect it to work itself out because the guy was an alcoholic, and therefore not responsible for his actions? In modern capitalist society, that kind of incident would usually result in jail time for the man, but wouldn't it make more sense, and be more humane all around, to instead use a significant portion of that man's resource share to take care of the kid he disabled?

Expecting the kid to just automatically be taken care of by people who just want to take care of it is naive. I agree that there are people out there like that, and they are saints, but we can't just expect them to take over and solve the problem for everyone else. Not to mention the fact that if fetal alcohol syndrome was not stigmatized and carried no consequences, there would like be greatly increased rates of children born with the disorder, putting a significant strain on society. Even in a Communist society, people who are uncapable of work but require extra resources put a strain on that society's economic potential. These people shouldn't be punished for that, but a society with healthier members will generally be more successful.

Oh, and the family will never go away completely, that's a completely naive idea that has been thoroughly discredited by the evolutionary analysis of human societies.

As for the several pages of Marx that you've quoted:

Let's say we have a very small Communist society, made up of say.... 3 people. Let's say that person 1 is very fit, and capable of producing enough resources for 2 people. Person 2 however, is irresponsible and doesn't contribute anything. Person 3 is disabled and uncapable of contributing. Which two people get the resources? I know that this is an extremely simplified model, but the fact remains that simply being Communist doesn't free a society from economic realities, one major reality being that people who don't contribute are a drain on society. This woman, through her actions, created another person who is a drain on society. Rather than punishing this second person, the woman should be punished. The most sensical and efficient punishment is to use resources that would have gone to the woman to instead care for her child.

A society made up of irresponsible, selfish people like this woman would quickly collapse, and none of those fantasies about people catering to extra needs would ever be viable. Giving those people food, water, and shelter as long as they don't cause any serious issues is fine, but giving them rarer resources causes a problem. For example, making alcohol can be a rather intensive process that requires considerable labor. Should this woman be given all the alcohol she wants, even though she has already screwed up one kid with it, and other people had to work hard to create it?

By "especially poor" member of society, I mean someone who only acts in a way that undermines that society. For example, someone who refuses to contribute in any way and by acting irresponsibly creates a further drain on society.

Marx recognized this free rider problem, and called for an "equal liability" to work. Being a realist, and an anarchist, I don't believe that an equal liability to work is feasible except in a voluntary, participatory system. And since voluntary participation is key to the success of a socety's economy, non-participation, while not directly punishable, will exclude you from the benefits of that society, which is, again, a natural consequence. If a person dies as a result of not participating in a society that might have kept them alive, that is on them, not on the society.

Finally, persistently ignoring a person's claims to own property is the shunning of that person's claims. It is the use of social stigma, as is ignoring the claims of "Norton, Emperor of the United States". It just doesn't sound like "stigma" to you because, as I said, social stigma is more broader than its bad reputation would suggest.

Palmares

7th December 2014, 07:11

Again, I agree but I also disagree. There has to be some personal accountability. Otherwise we might as well just call everyone the victim of circumstance: no more protesting against corporate overlords, because they were socially pressured to crush their workers; no more protesting against fascists because they are simply reacting to social tensions around them.

Life is hard. It will always be hard. Even under a Communist/anarchist system, it might be less hard, but it will still be hard. As a result, I think that we should have compassion for each other, and help each other through life. However, once a person has harmed another person through their actions, as I've stated, there are consequences. There need to be consequences.

I also agree that in some cases, especially in some indigenous contexts, women aren't properly educated about the role of alcohol in pregnancy. In those situations, the context should be considered. However, I would imagine that in the UK, as in the US, the vast majority of women know that it's a bad idea. And it's not like this woman was drinking a beer a day, she was drinking vast quantities of alcohol.

Interesting that you choose to compare, for example, a working class Indigenous woman with substance abuse problems who has a child with foetal alcohol syndrome, with a corporate overlord and a fascist...

Look, I hardly think that the circumstances that may create this syndrome should be encouraged, however, I'm not entirely convinced outright interference is the answer either. I'm not saying do nothing, as there are various ways people outside of the affected communities try to give support. Which of course includes ways to foster prevention. But micro-colonial social workers alone won't solve these issues. But they can try to reduce the symptoms.

Am I correct in assuming you believe in more specifically punitive method of addressing these issues? What would that consist of? I get the impression you appear to be a more authoritarian anarchist than me.

7th December 2014, 10:19

I'm personally pro-choice so have a view that a woman's body takes precedence when considering terminations. But in this instance, the baby is being carried to term and the mother is behaving in a way that has damaged the child irreversibly. I'm all for anyone of any gender being allowed to do what they want with their own body but something about this woman's behaviour and the ruling over it feels...off. Thoughts?

Thoughts?

Congratulations on being more anti-woman's rights than a bourgeois appellate court?

Any rights granted to fetuses diminish the equal personhood of pregnant women (and by extension, threaten all women who can become pregnant) by denying pregnant women full and exclusive dominion over their own bodies.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th December 2014, 11:22

Fetal alcohol syndrome occurs on a spectrum, with the worst end of that spectrum involving severe mental retardation. It is a tragedy, and it often ruins a child's potential forever.

Potential for what? People with severe mental retardation can lead happy lives, although this is difficult in capitalism (but then the tragedy is class society). The only "potential" that is "ruined" in these people is the potential to be an obedient wage slave, which is why calling their existence a "tragedy" is bourgeois filth.

As for the "personal responsibility thing" being conservative..... okay, I believe that a person has responsibility for his/her own actions. Does that make me a conservative? I'm still a social anarchist, so I doubt the conservatives would be all that excited to welcome me into their ranks.

Yes, that makes you a conservative, and as for your alleged anarchism, you still haven't answered: do you support the continuation of private ownership, competition and markets in what you think is "socialism"? Because your statements up to this point, from talking about someone's resources to "corporate overlords" (first - you do realise that talking about 'overlords' in contexts other than feudalism, military operations in Normandy and Disgaea makes you sound like a 'wake up sheeple' populist, right?; and second - socialists oppose all forms of private ownership, from Northrop-Grumman to Ma and Pa shops), seem to suggest so.

Expecting the kid to just automatically be taken care of by people who just want to take care of it is naive. I agree that there are people out there like that, and they are saints, but we can't just expect them to take over and solve the problem for everyone else. Not to mention the fact that if fetal alcohol syndrome was not stigmatized and carried no consequences, there would like be greatly increased rates of children born with the disorder, putting a significant strain on society. Even in a Communist society, people who are uncapable of work but require extra resources put a strain on that society's economic potential. These people shouldn't be punished for that, but a society with healthier members will generally be more successful.

It's as if you think the socialists society exists in order to keep some economic indicator like the GDP high. Well, no (and the GDP of a socialist society vanishes by definition). In socialism, production is for human need. Disabled people aren't a "strain on society" (this doesn't sound like conservatism at all, right?). And if the productive forces can't handle a small segment of the population not working, then the objective prerequisites for socialism do not exist (which is not the case - these prerequisites exist, and have existed for at least a century).

Oh, and the family will never go away completely, that's a completely naive idea that has been thoroughly discredited by the evolutionary analysis of human societies.

This should be a laugh, what kind of "evolutionary analysis" "discredits" the abolition of the family? You do know evo-psych is not a real science, right?

As for the several pages of Marx that you've quoted:

Let's say we have a very small Communist society, made up of say.... 3 people.

No, let's not say that, because it's fucking stupid. Three people make a collegium, according to the old cliche, but not a society. Socialism requires a society with large-scale, industrial, objectively socialised production, not some nonsense about three people. You might as well have a Robinsonian socialism of one person.

Marx recognized this free rider problem, and called for an "equal liability" to work.

The latter part is technically true; he called for equal liability to work as a transitional measure directed against the bourgeoisie in one of his earliest works. But perhaps you should read on - particularly the Critique of the Gotha Programme and Antiduhring, where Marx makes clear that not everyone would work at every point.

As for the former part, good luck proving that Marx accepted that bourgeois nonsense/

Being a realist, and an anarchist, I don't believe that an equal liability to work is feasible except in a voluntary, participatory system. And since voluntary participation is key to the success of a socety's economy, non-participation, while not directly punishable, will exclude you from the benefits of that society, which is, again, a natural consequence. If a person dies as a result of not participating in a society that might have kept them alive, that is on them, not on the society.

So like many of our market "anarchists" you're a "work or starve" maniac. Duly noted.

The Disillusionist

7th December 2014, 17:33

Potential for what? People with severe mental retardation can lead happy lives, although this is difficult in capitalism (but then the tragedy is class society). The only "potential" that is "ruined" in these people is the potential to be an obedient wage slave, which is why calling their existence a "tragedy" is bourgeois filth.

Potential to do a huge segment of things that he/she wouldn't otherwise be able to do. I'm not sure how you're even arguing this.

Yes, that makes you a conservative, and as for your alleged anarchism, you still haven't answered: do you support the continuation of private ownership, competition and markets in what you think is "socialism"? Because your statements up to this point, from talking about someone's resources to "corporate overlords" (first - you do realise that talking about 'overlords' in contexts other than feudalism, military operations in Normandy and Disgaea makes you sound like a 'wake up sheeple' populist, right?; and second - socialists oppose all forms of private ownership, from Northrop-Grumman to Ma and Pa shops), seem to suggest so.

That's just ridiculous. And no, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist... I use the term "corporate overlords" because I think it's funny.

It's as if you think the socialists society exists in order to keep some economic indicator like the GDP high. Well, no (and the GDP of a socialist society vanishes by definition). In socialism, production is for human need. Disabled people aren't a "strain on society" (this doesn't sound like conservatism at all, right?). And if the productive forces can't handle a small segment of the population not working, then the objective prerequisites for socialism do not exist (which is not the case - these prerequisites exist, and have existed for at least a century).

You misunderstand economics. A society's economic output has to at least equal its input, and the great its output in relation to its input, the more its workers benefit (in a Communist society). If "human need" is going to be so vastly expanded, as Marx stated, then society needs to be somewhat efficient. Expecting certain people to work in order to support other people who are voluntarily not working sounds inherently capitalist to me.

This should be a laugh, what kind of "evolutionary analysis" "discredits" the abolition of the family? You do know evo-psych is not a real science, right?

Actually, I was talking about Human Behavioral Ecology, but the fact that you think evo-psych isn't a science significantly discredits a lot of what you say, in my opinion. Evolutionary Psychology is, without a doubt, a science, especially compared to the speculation that Marx and Engels based their idea of the dissolution of the family on.

No, let's not say that, because it's fucking stupid. Three people make a collegium, according to the old cliche, but not a society. Socialism requires a society with large-scale, industrial, objectively socialised production, not some nonsense about three people. You might as well have a Robinsonian socialism of one person.

That seems rather arbitrary to me, and inherently authoritarian. So no towns or villages are capable of being socialist, unless they are directly linked to the socialist power center? On top of that, the industrial means of production is not always all that "productive". Food production, except for a vast swath of worthless, unhealthy, processed corn products, is still done to a large extent by hand. On top of that, industrial production very often requires a heirarchical social structure. You need managers to direct people into their specific jobs, because remember that task specialization was one of the hallmarks of the industrial revolution, and those people are expected to do those specific jobs as everyone else does theirs. I could make the argument that industrial production, as it is structured today, is inherently capitalist. It's not just one guy pulling a lever, as all the Communist cartoons love to portray.

The latter part is technically true; he called for equal liability to work as a transitional measure directed against the bourgeoisie in one of his earliest works. But perhaps you should read on - particularly the Critique of the Gotha Programme and Antiduhring, where Marx makes clear that not everyone would work at every point.

As for the former part, good luck proving that Marx accepted that bourgeois nonsense/

I'm not making the argument that everyone has to work at every point either. I'm just making the argument that everyone should contribute in some way to society. If someone wants to be an artist, I say go for it, but maybe try to help out with some other part of society every now and then as well. The free rider problem isn't "bourgeois", that's ridiculous, it's basis economic common sense. As I said, just because we're leftists we can't pretend that reality will stop working in the same way for us, as if we're somehow special.

The fact is that in a Communist society, every person who refuses to contribute when he/she has the capability to contribute, is directly hurting every single other person in that society by increasing the resource demand, and thus the labor demand. That means that everyone else has to work just a little bit harder to fill the place of that person.

So like many of our market "anarchists" you're a "work or starve" maniac. Duly noted.

As I've already noted, the conditions under which a person would be removed from the processes of society would have to be exceedingly bad, and that person would have to obviously be making the choice not to participate in any way. The idea of voluntary participation may sound harsh to you, but the alternative is either forced labor or some kind of market incentive system. By the way, because I don't believe in centralized power structures, my version of society is at a significantly smaller scale than your version. I'm thinking on the scale of villages/towns/cities. Of course, if you have a centralized government enforcing control over a very large area, then it would be unfeasible to remove people from that system.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

13th December 2014, 00:44

I completely forgot about this thread.

Potential to do a huge segment of things that he/she wouldn't otherwise be able to do. I'm not sure how you're even arguing this.

But this is ridiculous. Being born male, there is a huge segment of things that I would otherwise be able to, that I can't do. Balding also means there is a huge segment of things... do you see how that works? It's pointless and metaphysical to argue about "potential" in this sense.

"Mentally disabled" people exist, are not in constant pain and in fact can lead happy lives. Casuistry about the "potential" they have lost is irrelevant.

You misunderstand economics. A society's economic output has to at least equal its input, and the great its output in relation to its input, the more its workers benefit (in a Communist society). If "human need" is going to be so vastly expanded, as Marx stated, then society needs to be somewhat efficient. Expecting certain people to work in order to support other people who are voluntarily not working sounds inherently capitalist to me.

I don't think the misunderstanding of economics is on my part. You're using the capitalist category of value as if it were unproblematic when applied to a socialist society. Well, no, in socialism objects are produced, not as commodities to be exchanged on the market, but to be used by society. In socialism, objects have no value, and your entire claim is meaningless.

Technical efficiency is something else. If Factory #1013 expends urea and formaldehyde to produce plastic, we want the number of the units of plastic produced per unit of input to be as high as possible, generally speaking (of course it's not that simple). But, first of all, this only applies to given production units, not to society. And second, it does not, in modern industrial production, depend on the number of people employed in any meaningful manner. If anything, capitalist enterprises use too many workers from the viewpoint of pure technical efficiency, as the criterion for surviving on the market is not technical efficiency but the rate of profit.

Actually, I was talking about Human Behavioral Ecology, but the fact that you think evo-psych isn't a science significantly discredits a lot of what you say, in my opinion. Evolutionary Psychology is, without a doubt, a science, especially compared to the speculation that Marx and Engels based their idea of the dissolution of the family on.

Haha, sure, that's why their basic hypothesis contradicts everything that is known about the human brain, and why they mostly publish in pop-sci books and their own journals.

That seems rather arbitrary to me, and inherently authoritarian. So no towns or villages are capable of being socialist, unless they are directly linked to the socialist power center?

Well, no.

No towns or villages are capable of being socialist. Socialism in one country is nonsense; socialism in one village nonsense on stilts. Socialism exists on the scale of the entire global society, given the interpenetration of the production processes across the globe.

On top of that, the industrial means of production is not always all that "productive". Food production, except for a vast swath of worthless, unhealthy, processed corn products, is still done to a large extent by hand.

It's done with industrial machinery like tractors, pesticides etc. And without these, the majority of the population would starve. As it stands, the incompletely mechanised agriculture of capitalism is capable of producing around 3000 calories per person. Socialism, which would remove the need for keeping the rate of profit high by holding back automation, and which would smash the backwardness of the present periphery of the imperialist system, would probably manage more, with a significantly lesser percentage of the labour force employed in agriculture.

On top of that, industrial production very often requires a heirarchical social structure. You need managers to direct people into their specific jobs, because remember that task specialization was one of the hallmarks of the industrial revolution, and those people are expected to do those specific jobs as everyone else does theirs. I could make the argument that industrial production, as it is structured today, is inherently capitalist. It's not just one guy pulling a lever, as all the Communist cartoons love to portray.

Haha what.

But what gives you the idea that communists oppose management? Here is how Marx put it:

"The labour of supervision and management is naturally required wherever the direct process of production assumes the form of a combined social process, and not of the isolated labour of independent producers. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch23.htm#n2)However, it has a double nature.
On the one hand, all labour in which many individuals co-operate necessarily requires a commanding will to co-ordinate and unify the process, and functions which apply not to partial operations but to the total activity of the workshop, much as that of an orchestra conductor. This is a productive job, which must be performed in every combined mode of production.

On the other hand — quite apart from any commercial department — this supervision work necessarily arises in all modes of production based on the antithesis between the labourer, as the direct producer, and the owner of the means of production. The greater this antagonism, the greater the role played by supervision. Hence it reaches its peak in the slave system.[3] (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch23.htm#n3) But it is indispensable also in the capitalist mode of production, since the production process in it is simultaneously a process by which the capitalist consumes labour-power. Just as in despotic states, supervision and all-round interference by the government involves both the performance of common activities arising from the nature of all communities, and the specific functions arising from the antithesis between the government and the mass of the people."

Once again: "the labour of supervision and management... needs to be preformed in every combined mode of production."

The Disillusionist

13th December 2014, 02:41

Oh, ok. Well since there's no such thing as potential, I guess mental handicaps shouldn't even be a concept. And hey, why bother with education? If there's no such thing as potential, what's the point? And what about politics, I mean really, workers under a capitalist system can be happy too, so why worry about it? This is a ridiculous argument.

Try telling a starving man that food has no value. Value exists AS need. People need food and water, therefore it has value to them. This is basic economics. As I've stated, you can't just pretend that the rules don't apply to leftists. You also can't just expect "modern industrial production" to solve all our problems, and you can't expect one group of people to produce for other people who are not contributing to that group. Production requires energy, and every surplus bit of energy requires labor, thus you are forcing one group of people, laborers, to labor for the benefit of another group of people, non-cooperators. That's a capitalist mindset, and it's how "state capitalism", i.e., your brand of socialism, comes about.

Wow... All I can say is that I get the sense that you don't know much about Evolutionary Psychology, or HBE.

Global large scale unified government-run socialism is not feasible or attainable, it's oppressive, and it's destructive.

Industrial food production is incredibly exploitative. It's destroying farmers and workers in developing countries as we speak. Tractors aren't nearly that efficient. They require people to use the tractors, people to maintain them, people to build them, people to build the parts for them, people to produce the gasoline to put in them, people to refine the gasoline, people to drill for the oil to refine, people to find the oil in the first place, and people to transport all this stuff all over the place. Modern industrial farming is the result of capitalism, and is inextricably linked with it. It's also destroying the environment by pumping out tons of greenhouse gases.

Socialism would not produce as much as capitalism, because it isn't socialism's job to produce in excess, only to produce to satisfy a need.

I disagree with Marx. Marx, in my opinion, was rather naive about the true nature and power dynamics of industry. He recognized that industrial production requires management, but he failed to recognize that the industrial production process as a system is built around a capitalist heirarchy. The managers control distribution of the product, and so they have authority over the product and its distribution, which inevitably leads to them abusing that power. The only way to combat that is to create a powerful government that can take that authority onto itself, thus become itself subject to "state capitalism".

Overall, your entire argument in this post and in previous ones is based upon the existence of a strong, centralized government. I, to the contrary, am an anarchist, and thus my posts have been based upon the non-existence of government. We aren't likely to see eye to eye here.

PhoenixAsh

13th December 2014, 04:06

Well, first, I'm not strictly a communist, I'm a social anarchist.

to be fair..you are a really weird social anarchist if you take the position you are taking...even if it is a position you took to spark debate.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

13th December 2014, 04:16

Knowingly drinking when one is pregnant is dubious behavior, but that kind of judgment should not be extended to supporting some kind of legal blame. Instead we should focus on trying to end the conditions that drive people to drink when pregnant, and understand the social and biological causes of addiction to help provide preventative measures.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

13th December 2014, 04:51

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th December 2014, 01:33

I would also point out to 870 that a lot of people have suffered serious brain damage as adults and still lived happy lives, but that doesn't mean it's okay to hit people in the head with baseball bats.

Lily Briscoe

14th December 2014, 02:00

I don't really see the parallel between a pregnant woman struggling with an addiction and someone who goes around hitting people in the head with a baseball bat.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th December 2014, 02:59

My point was that just because "mentally disabled" people can and do lead full lives doesn't mean it's okay to knowingly engage in acts that can give someone such a disability.

Lily Briscoe

14th December 2014, 03:45

People talk about it like fetal alcohol syndrome is something 'dubious' pregnant women do maliciously to fuck up their child.

Why is it even necessary to declare that it's 'not okay' or "dubious behavior" or "a shitty thing to do"? To counter the nonexistent chorus of people who think getting shitfaced while pregnant is A Great Idea? Is having an addiction "dubious behavior" and "a shitty thing to do"? It just seems like an underhanded concession to the reactionary finger-wagging about "bad mothers" and "irresponsible women". Sometimes people are thrown into horrible situations. Why is it always necessary to have someone to blame? I would think struggling with an addiction while pregnant and having a severely disabled kid is awful enough, without the condemnation of a bunch of random people - many of whom have the luxury of being physically incapable of ever finding themselves in that position - piled on top of it. It just seems really unnecessary.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

14th December 2014, 04:09

Addiction causes people to do lots of shitty things. Addiction isn't a moral failing, so I don't blame the addict. However, people who say those shitty things are no big deal? I will blame them for that attitude. Though I'll grant my analogy was a clumsy one.

Redistribute the Rep

14th December 2014, 05:19

Lily Briscoe

14th December 2014, 05:50

However, people who say those shitty things are no big deal? I will blame them for that attitude.

:confused: people who say what things?

To be clear, I wasn't arguing against blaming people for saying "shitty things", I was arguing against blaming women with substance problems for having children with disabilities.

synthesis

14th December 2014, 07:15

I'm not convinced punishing women with alcohol problems will lower instances of fetal alchohol syndrome, if anything it will just cause women who need help to avoid seeking it out of fear of punishment and increase rates of FAS

It may or may not. Who's to say whether the total numbers would be better or worse off with a legal deterrent? Legal proscription may prevent more disabilities than it saves, or it may not. The point is that it doesn't matter. I think it's important not to let people change the terms of the debate.

Redistribute the Rep

14th December 2014, 07:56

It may or may not. Who's to say whether the total numbers would be better or worse off with a legal deterrent? Legal proscription may prevent more disabilities than it saves, or it may not. The point is that it doesn't matter. I think it's important not to let people change the terms of the debate.

Alright if you want to stick to other "terms of debate that's fine", but the first of this post is unneeded and it's fairly obvious that pregnant women with drinking problems wouldn't seek out help with legal deterrents in place, resulting in more cases of FAS. Who's to say whether or not this will be the case? ...anybody with any basic reasoning skills and understanding of causality at all, perhaps? Not to mention the empirical evidence, as this sort of legal deterrent has been tried, in many circumstances, with entirely predictable results, so this conclusion is justified I would say, whether you think it's irrelevant to the discussion or not. Perhaps I should have also clarified that my post was meant more to refute any notion that some users have of these laws protecting anybody, than to imply that this was the reason I myself have the stance on the laws that I do. That we are against this sort of legislation on the basis of female bodily autonomy has already been stated repeatedly, with the opposing side simply denying that they are against this, and instead support the legislation for its supposed protection of children. My post I think destroys any claim of it protecting anybody and leaves the others with no ground to stand on other than admitting that they support the laws on the basis of denying women their rights to their bodily integrity. Am I really "changing the terms of the debate?" People have already been arguing on the grounds of protecting people, I would say it's relevant to say that it actually doesn't. Unless we're just supposed to keep on repeating the same things that people (who don't even understand the outcomes of the legislation they support) have just been ignoring this whole time

consuming negativity

14th December 2014, 11:59

Why is it even necessary to declare that it's 'not okay' or "dubious behavior" or "a shitty thing to do"?

because the counter-arguments ITT are basically "but drinking while pregnant is bad and so we should do something about it!11!1one"

so we're saying "well, we agree that it's not awesome, but your solution to the problem is terrible and will probably make shit a lot worse because it is actually the problem to begin with"

and, well, it isn't awesome. no mother who drank during pregnancy, if pressed, i believe, would ever say "oh yeah i'm so glad i drank like hell and damaged the fetus, was the best time in my life ever and i'd love to repeat it". if anything they probably feel ridiculous amounts of - repressed or not - guilt about the fact. if only if because there is a big cultural onus on women to be "good mothers". which is not to say that we should contribute to this by shaming them - but articulating our agreement that the situation should, ideally, never have happened, is not doing that.

we can understand their position, support their rights and humanity, and refrain from blaming them for their situation, but without pretending that it's a good situation. a person who is an alcoholic - regardless of pregnancy - is not in a good situation. that isn't blaming it's just the truth. people shouldn't be alcoholics. and, if possible, we will help them to help themselves become not-alcoholics so long as they consent to that help. and, if not, well, help that is not wanted is not help at all. at least that's what i think, but that's a bit far and away from the topic of this thread.

Lily Briscoe

14th December 2014, 12:36

It's not really worth getting in a long drawn-out exchange over it, but you didn't simply say "drinking a lot while pregnant is not A Good Situation" (although, again, the value of such a mind-numbingly banal observation in the context of a thread like this is beyond me), you said this:

it is shitty for her to purposefully and knowingly give her child FAS through drinking way too much during pregnancy
I think what is "shitty" is that people here feel the need to lend their voices to the reactionary chorus passing moral judgement on women in this situation.

consuming negativity

14th December 2014, 13:00

nah, you're right. i can't believe i actually said that. went back to look and sure enough, i did.

well, i don't agree with that, and honestly i don't know what i was thinking :unsure:

Lily Briscoe

14th December 2014, 14:58

OK, fair enough. I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here or whatever, I just think the specter of 'irresponsible pregnant woman' is used to goad people into supporting attacks on working class women, and people need to think about what they're saying.

synthesis

14th December 2014, 18:50

Alright if you want to stick to other "terms of debate that's fine", but the first of this post is unneeded and it's fairly obvious that pregnant women with drinking problems wouldn't seek out help with legal deterrents in place, resulting in more cases of FAS. Who's to say whether or not this will be the case? ...anybody with any basic reasoning skills and understanding of causality at all, perhaps? Not to mention the empirical evidence, as this sort of legal deterrent has been tried, in many circumstances, with entirely predictable results, so this conclusion is justified I would say, whether you think it's irrelevant to the discussion or not. Perhaps I should have also clarified that my post was meant more to refute any notion that some users have of these laws protecting anybody, than to imply that this was the reason I myself have the stance on the laws that I do. That we are against this sort of legislation on the basis of female bodily autonomy has already been stated repeatedly, with the opposing side simply denying that they are against this, and instead support the legislation for its supposed protection of children. My post I think destroys any claim of it protecting anybody and leaves the others with no ground to stand on other than admitting that they support the laws on the basis of denying women their rights to their bodily integrity. Am I really "changing the terms of the debate?" People have already been arguing on the grounds of protecting people, I would say it's relevant to say that it actually doesn't. Unless we're just supposed to keep on repeating the same things that people (who don't even understand the outcomes of the legislation they support) have just been ignoring this whole time

Wow, what? I think we've had a misunderstanding. When I said "we shouldn't let people change the terms of the debate," that wasn't referring to you.