Self-exposure of baby box advocates. Or who needs a foundling box?

On May 18, at a meeting of the “Evening” discussion club, a discussion was held on the topic: Does the city need devices for foundling children, the so-called baby boxes?
The media have already published their detailed reports:here , here and here.
I will not engage in retelling, everything can be read using the links above, but I would like to highlight those points of the discussion that seemed to me the most important and interesting.

The very fact of holding this meeting is interesting, namely the choice of sides of opponents and defenders of the toss boxes. They were two local lawyers. The opponent, Yaroslav Mikhailov, noted in the topic of opposition to baby boxes by sending a request to check this initiative to the prosecutor's office. The defender is Yan Chebotarev, who is concerned that someone dared to oppose such a “good” initiative.

Photo source “Vyatka Observer”

We expected that in the battle between two lawyers, the topic of compliance with the law of the initiative to use baby boxes would be fully disclosed. However, everything happened differently. Yaroslav Mikhailov did not cover the legal topic at all in his report, which surprised everyone present. Therefore, this issue, among other things, had to be disclosed to the Commissioner for Children’s Rights Vladimir Shabardin, who, to his surprise, was appointed co-rapporteur right at the meeting. Actually, Vladimir Valerievich coped with the task perfectly. And it turned out that it was not Mikhailov, but Shabardin who became the main opponent in the discussion with Chebotarev, since the ombudsman was given a long time to speak, where he was able to fully explain his position against child-abandonment boxes.

I note that this event was clearly planned and prepared by boxing advocates. There was a clear impression that the initiative to hold the discussion did not come from Yaroslav Mikhailov, since he practically did not show any activity and liveliness in the discussion; in fact, he did not need it. And the funny thing is that Mikhailov, as I wrote above, noted on the topic of baby boxes only by sending a statement to the prosecutor’s office and that’s it. He did not have numerous articles with detailed analytical reasoning about what this terrible undertaking leads to, which were written by RVS activists, there were no justified public statements of protest against the introduction of boxes and discussions with the public, there was no clearly expressed position and strong argumentation. Nothing like what Shabardin and RVS had. However, supporters of boxing preferred to challenge Mikhailov to a duel, as a weak opponent, apparently hoping to thereby win the fight, especially since Mikhailov and Chebotarev had clearly known each other for a long time. But the victory of the supporters of installing baby boxes did not work out, since we, the Kirov branch of the “Parental All-Russian Resistance” and the Commissioner for Children’s Rights Vladimir Shabardin, as well as Olga Ustyuzhanina, the head of the Center for the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood “My Family,” also came to the meeting. Together, we coherently and clearly conveyed our position that these boxes do not save children from death, and also cause irreparable harm to society by introducing easy and comfortable refusal of motherhood.

This observation of mine is confirmed by the speech of Gregory Zwolinski, who opened the ill-fated baby box in his parish. Grigory spoke via Skype, and for technical reasons, he was not able to hear what was happening in the hall. Zwolinski stated that his main opponents were representatives of the RVS, but he did not say a word about Jaroslav. Funny, right?

Next, I want to look at the tactics of defending the boxes represented by Yan Chebotarev and some of his comrades.

The first and most important method of defense is the denial of any arguments and facts about the dangers of baby boxes, since it is precisely the side of the harm of this initiative that is most dangerous for them.
There was also denial of the facts cited that the boxes do not work because they do not save children from death. Here, opponents of boxing also cited the experience of the city of Vladimir , where for 4 years children were not thrown into a baby box even once, and the mortality rate remained at the same level. And most importantly, Vladimir Shabardin presented an argument that refutes all the claims of the boxes’ defenders that they save children from murder. The commissioner said: “Last week I was in the investigative committee, we looked into the situation of all the killed babies over the past two years, and in none of these cases the mother would have taken the child anywhere. If a woman decides to kill a child without taking any action to save him, she will kill him.” All the above facts that the boxes do not work were ignored by the defense with amazing ease.

The defense also denied arguments about the colossal harm from these boxes. We recalled the experience of Western countries , where the mortality rate of infants did not decrease with the presence of a box, but throwing increased, while in Germany they could not trace the fate of every fifth foundling in a baby box; they disappeared. We clearly outlined our position and repeatedly repeated that: “We do not ban saving the lives of children, but we want to ban baby boxes, which do not save lives, but only have a destructive effect on the institution of the family and create an easy opportunity for the mother to abandon the child.”

Thus, Vladimir Shabardin clarified that “baby boxing will provoke mothers to leave their children with impunity, abandon them, give birth and produce orphans. It destroys the mother's responsibility for her child. A baby box does not save lives. It could provoke another mother to abandon her child.”

And Olga Ustyuzhanina noted: “And how to explain to young people why this baby box is there? The very informing of women and girls about baby boxes has the same destructive force against motherhood as informing children about the types of non-traditional sexual relations. This destroys the traditional and correct attitude towards the family, motherhood and childhood.”

Vladimir Shabardin added that “the possibility of using abandoned children for criminal purposes cannot be ruled out, as well as a situation where a mother, having gotten rid of the first unwanted child in such an easy way, will carry a second, third and subsequent children into it.”

Many more arguments, facts, and quotes were given. However, the defense side ignored any arguments against the boxes. Thus, Yan Chebotarev constantly stated in his speeches that, unfortunately, he did not hear anything in the discussion about the dangers of baby boxes, that supposedly his opponents could not tell anything about it.

The second technique of defenders is ridicule . In response to my statement that the introduction of boxes is a deep manipulation , when, under the pretext of saving children, the dehumanization of society is promoted through the introduction of easy renunciation of motherhood, Chebotarev said that all this is conspiracy theory, and that he does not believe in dark forces and conspiracy theories. Very fun...

The third and apparently favorite technique of Chebotarev is reduction to the point of absurdity . Here are quotes from his statements:
“Banning baby boxes is the same as if I were forbidden, for example, to protect a woman from hooligans harassing her on the street. By this logic, I have only two options: either call the police or pass by. Therefore, I am convinced that the absence of direct permission in the law cannot be considered a ban.”
Or like this: “If we are talking about the fact that baby boxes will encourage abandonment of children and therefore their installation should be prohibited, then the next step should be to ban public utilities from installing garbage cans? We cannot ban everything: the sale of knives, axes that can be used to kill, and so on.”

The fourth technique is an appeal to a child’s tear and accusing opponents of bloodthirstiness .
Chebotarev: “And if these devices are still banned, I personally will regret every baby found in a trash can.” Well, only the laziest defender of boxing did not accuse us of bloodthirstiness: that we long for the death of children, and that we are cruel, that we have no heart, etc. Zwolinski, in fact, went so far as to blame the RVS for the millions of child deaths that arose after the Bolsheviks in the 20s allowed doctors to perform abortions in hospitals. How this is connected with the RVS, and even more so with the topic under discussion, is not clear to us.

Finally, here are a few striking inconsistencies in the logic of box defenders:

1. RVS activist Leonid Potekhin asked Chebotarev to comment on a couple of possible situations. If one of the parents takes the child to the baby box without telling the other parent. Or the mother will give birth to a baby and kill him, and tell others that she put him in the baby box.
Chebotarev replied that in the first case, one of the parents can initiate a search for the missing child, and in the second, the mother’s guilt must be investigated and proven by the investigative authorities.
- Here another point comes up that we are already tired of talking about - anonymity. Why would investigative authorities suddenly begin to look into cases of anonymously throwing a child into a baby box? After all, the whole point of the box is its anonymity - you threw it in and no one will ask you. Otherwise, what kind of anonymous planting is this if an SK check is needed for every case? Then, perhaps, it’s not worth getting into all the fuss with anonymity? But the lack of anonymity makes the whole idea with baby boxes meaningless, because non-anonymous abandonment of a child already exists.

2. In response to Shabardin’s position that this initiative is not legal, is not regulated by anything and only causes harm, Chebotarev states: “You, the state, exist for this purpose, to regulate and control this situation.” That is, it turns out that Chebotarev with these boxes generates new problems for the state, forcing the state to solve them. Normal, right?

3. A very active woman from the law firm, Anna Kitaychik, who defends the interests of Grigory Zwolinski, clung to the response from the prosecutor's office , which said that only guardianship can identify children left without parental care. It’s funny that Kitaychik and Chebotarev constantly called the response from the prosecutor’s office the main argument of opponents of baby boxing, although this is not true. So, she called the guardianship and found out what this “identification” was.
The guardianship responded that the identification of children is considered to be documentation of the child’s status. Anna stated: “Thus, the activity of a baby box in no way fulfills the functions of the guardianship authorities, but is only an additional civilized option to anonymously leave a child.”
The fact of the matter is that it is impossible to leave a child anonymously in our country, since the parent is legally obliged to bear responsibility for refusing to support and raise the child. Kitaychik and Chebotaryov, as lawyers, should know this, otherwise doubts generally arise about their professional competence as lawyers. The existence of the possibility of a civilized anonymous refusal now exists only in the dreams of baby box supporters, but not in Russian legislation.

4. The performance of Progress Gallery employee Nina Khabibrakhmanova also did not leave anyone indifferent. The girl complained that she gave birth to a child in a difficult life situation, when she was a student and her husband was unemployed, and that no one from the government authorities bothered to help her. “I am a potential mother who had to either abandon her child or kill him because we do not have the means to raise our son.”

The girl, without noticing it, completely abdicates personal responsibility. Before deciding to have a child, she and her husband had to weigh the pros and cons based on their life situation. And if, despite this, they still decide to have a child, they must understand that the main burden of upbringing and maintenance naturally falls on the parents. There are, of course, government support measures, which for some reason Nina knew nothing about. Although this is strange, since in the antenatal clinic each pregnant woman is given a “personal card of a pregnant woman”, where on page No. 4 it is indicated what measures of state support are due and where to go to receive them.

With all this, Nina, completely abdicating all responsibility, accuses the state of creating a situation where she has to make a choice: kill the child or refuse. And since the state does not introduce baby boxes, it turns out that, in Nina’s opinion, it is pushing women to kill their children? But Nina didn’t kill the child, right?

But if there was boxing, such a weak, infantile and irresponsible person would easily take her child there. And, thank God, at that time there was no boxing in Kirov, otherwise there would have been at least one more orphan. And what a shame it is for a woman - a mother - to make such statements in public, it’s just some kind of shame. Nina herself proved what society can become if there are boxes for anonymously throwing children: a woman will become an irresponsible infantile creature, and children will lose their mothers, the institution of the family will be destroyed.

And here the example of Olga Ustyuzhanina about a teenage girl who takes an unwanted child to boxing for the reason that he will never recognize her and that’s cool came in handy...

Well, let’s put up boxes for throwing away children, because we have some capricious ladies who are completely devoid of responsibility for their own lives and who want to relieve themselves of responsibility for the life of their child. Is this the norm now?

This shouldn't happen.
See you in the USSR!

Original