Re: [Marxism] reaching out to the far right II (response toBobHopson)

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is my second stab at responding to Sayan's post. A second draft was
necessary because the first one began "This is the kind of dishonest crap
that drives me up the fucking wall," and went downhill from there.

But the subject deserves much more serious handling than that.

So let me say that I am greatly grieved to have to point out that,
unfortunately, Sayan is mistaken when he writes, "I was responding to
Joaquin, who said that 'an embryo is not capable of sustaining life
independently'. The key word is 'independently'. I was pointing out that a
baby, too, is unable of sustaining life 'independently', much as an embryo.
(Humans are one of the few species in which the young remain dependent on
adults for a relatively long time)."

Sayan is mistaken. That is not what I said. What I actually said was, "And
biologically, an embryo is not capable of sustaining life or developing into
a baby independently." Sayan overlooked the first two words of my sentence,
which unfortunately, leads him to imagine that "The key word is
'independently,'" whereas in reality "independently" in this context is
meaningless without the modifier "biologically."

"Biologically," as in "biology." 

According to the top hit when I googled "biology" and "definition" together
it means "1. The science of life and of living organisms, including their
structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It
includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions." 

Just to be safe I also googled "biology" and "etymology" and the top result
told me this: "1819, from Ger., from Gk. bios 'life' (see bio-) + logia
'study of.' Suggested 1802 by Ger. naturalist G. Reinhold Treviranus and
introduced as a scientific term that year in Fr. by Lamarck."

So, what did it mean when I said "biologically"? That in terms of the
"science of life and living organisms," and specifically "their structure,
function, growth" and so on, an embryo is not independent, a baby is. 

In what sense "independent"? In the most basic of all, in (there's that word
again!) BIOLOGICAL terms. 

If a woman dies, any embryo AUTOMATICALLY dies with her, ceases to be an
embryo, for it is no more BIOLOGICALLY than a part of her body. But any BABY
is entirely UNAFFECTED BIOLOGICALLY by a woman's death, even if it happens
to be the woman that, until moments before, carried that baby inside her,
for, with birth, that baby has achieved the status of a biologically
independent living entity. 

Sayan is ALMOST entirely correct in saying that a newborn is NOT
"independent," but rather entirely dependent on others for survival, and for
years after birth. "Almost" entirely correct because there is one sense in
which the baby is NO LONGER dependent. The baby is NO LONGER dependent
BIOLOGICALLY. Prior to birth, the baby obtained nourishment, oxygen for its
blood, etc., entirely and exclusively from the mother's own life-sustaining
biological processes. If those processes stopped for the mother, they
necessarily stopped for the baby also. If the mother dies, the baby dies
also, unless it is already so developed and medical intervention is
available so that the baby can immediately begin its own life as a
biologically independent organism. But once birth takes place, the
biological facts change radically. The mother can die with NO direct,
immediate biological impact on the infant. The infant lives (or dies)
entirely INDEPENDENTLY of whether the mother lives or dies, in any immediate
BIOLOGICAL sense. 

"Normally," of course, the baby is still entirely dependent, and normally on
its mother. But this dependence, although most often BIOLOGICAL in origin,
is in reality SOCIAL. Should the mother die at childbirth, another person
(or group of persons) can step in as primary caregiver(s) for the baby.
Should the mother live, it is still true that another person (or group of
persons) can equally well step in as primary caregiver(s) for the baby,
though in our society this is less usual. 

The feeding of the newborn, preferentially through the product of lactation
of an adult human female, is normally most easily, directly, and socially
acceptably accomplished by having the birth mother play this role, but human
history and current experience shows this is not obligatorily the case. This
confirms that, while undoubtedly biologically rooted, the mother-child (and
more generally parent-child, and more generally still caregiver-child)
relationship is SOCIAL.

Which brings me to my final point, which has to do with one of Sayan's
earlier posts in this thread, where he argues that he sees no fundamental
difference between abortion and infanticide. 

I leave aside the moral outrage expressed by some comrades, not that I also
don?t feel it, but I also know that our gut instinct sense of what is
"moral" is a social product, and considering the society that we and our
moral sense are a product of, I TRY not to automatically trust it.

But there is a huge and qualitative difference between abortion and
infanticide. The difference is this: The relationship between a woman and an
embryo is a purely biological one, entirely within the sphere of the
individual autonomy of human beings, with only ONE person, ONE member of
society --the woman-- involved. 

The relationship between a mother and even a just-born baby is a SOCIAL one.
That baby has transitioned from being a tiny cluster of cells that is
intrinsically --that can only exist-- as a part of the woman's body to an
independent being sustaining life entirely autonomously from the immediate
biological processes of the woman's body.

The "family" --even in the reduced form of simply a mother and her baby-- is
not just, and not mainly, an extension of the previous strictly biological
relation. In our day and age, and throughout written human history until
now, in other words, throughout the history of class societies, the family
has been, as it remains today, the fundamental cell of human society. 

Under American capitalism, we tend to think of society as that which lies
"outside" the family, because the generalization of commodity production and
the diminishing economic role of the family. But in reality capitalist
society recognizes the social role of the family, regulating it, and
intervening within it when --by its lights-- that is necessary. Thus as
capitalism has developed and the need to socialize and train labor has
become evident, capitalism has implemented universal, compulsory education,
usurping what was once considered the sacred, inviolable terrain of parents.

Obviously, there is a difference between a woman deciding to remove an
unwanted blastocyst from her body days after conception to one just entering
labor deciding she want to terminate the pregnancy rather than give birth. 

And in the real world, a pregnancy normally becomes increasingly a SOCIAL
event and not merely a personal circumstance the more advanced it becomes.
Prospective grandparents, spouses, other relatives, friends, doctors, nurses
and midwives, nutritionists and counselors, baby store clerks, the Human
Resources people at work and beyond them  the insurance company, hospital
personnel, in short, ALL sorts of people become involved as society, usually
with the expectant mother in the lead, prepares to receive a new member. 

I don't mean to suggest that ALL termination of pregnancy before a baby
draws its first breath outside the womb and the umbilical cord is cut is
just the same; once a fetus is likely viable outside the womb, assuming the
woman's health will not be seriously adversely affected by continuation of
the pregnancy, and taking into account the reality of the increasingly
social character of pregnancies as their natural end draws near, there is a
point beyond which birth, and not abortion, should be considered the end
point of a given pregnancy. In an ideal and humane world, I would feel very
comfortable to leave this decision to the interaction of a woman with her
midwife and/or physicians, and their sense of what is ethical. But even in
this 
very far from ideal world, and considering the other options (priests, cops,
courts and judges) I would still leave the decision there, and take the
regulation of abortion entirely out of the political sphere.

This because this is still a patriarchal society, a society in which women
are oppressed and exploited as such, as women. To counter patriarchy, it is
necessary to empower women. And when you come right down to it, I believe
patriarchy has killed many more babies --not to mention children, teenagers
and adults-- than women ever have, or ever will.

Joaquín


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism