Why are socialists so pro-abortion?

Socialism is in the news more than ever as one socialist-leaning politician after another wins their races in Democratic party primaries. Some even call themselves communists.

The movement is led by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who built a thriving socialist political movement which includes Representatives Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson spoke in Iowa last week and said at least 28 House socialist candidates have won or are poised to win their primaries, putting them on the ballot in November.

The energy in the Democratic Party comes from the extreme Left of the political spectrum as Democratic Socialists of America candidates find a home in the established Democrat Party.

Pulse Life Advocates finds this concerning, because socialists disproportionately support radical positions on abortion. Let’s take a closer look.

Q. For starters, what is socialism? How does it differ from communism and capitalism? 

Capitalism is a pejorative term introduced by 19th century French socialists to describe free enterprise and economies characterized by free markets. Essentially, free enterprise systems empower the individual by letting individuals and business own the means of production, as well as private property. By contrast socialism allows limited ownership of private property, but the means of productions for major industries are publicly owned. Communism goes further by abolishing all private property, land ownership, and businesses.

Q. What are the philosophical differences between socialism and free markets?

A. Free markets emphasize equality of opportunity, while socialism focuses on equality of outcome, or ‘equity’ in today’s vernacular. Socialism views wealth as a zero-sum game. If a person is a ‘billionaire,’ his wealth came at the expense of others.

Free markets, by contrast, see the economy as an expanding pie, fueled by innovation, risk-taking, and freedom. Wealth is earned, not taken, and the entire economy benefits. As President John F. Kennedy put it, “a rising tide lifts all the boats.” Ultimately, though, socialism is a philosophy focused on materialism, not ideals, according to Karl Marx. He denigrates free markets as a class struggle over limited resources.

Socialism, in this view, is the corrective to protect the working class from the rich. His philosophy is godless, with his famous put-down that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Essentially, he believed religion provided the working class false hope in a perfect afterlife at the expense of building a better life in the here and now.

Q. So what does any of this have to do with the pro-life movement?

A. A great deal. The philosophical underpinnings of Marxism and Communism view the unborn as obstacles to material well-being by bringing another mouth-to-feed into a family. In other words, each new child is a burden, not a blessing.

Because socialists are more likely to reject God and religion, they don’t view the unborn as having any intrinsic value, unless they are wanted. Since to them the economy is a zero-sum gain, each new mouth that comes into the world shrinks the slice of the pie for everyone else.

Q. Aren’t you casting a rather large net to characterize socialists as ‘godless.’

A. That’s not what we said. We said they are more likely to reject God and religion. As we pointed out in a recent blogpost, 63% of Democrats in the 1990s believed in God with “no doubts.” That number dropped to 39% by the 2020s. As socialists take over the party, it is notable that Democrat church attendance has plummeted since the 1970s when 52% attended church services at least monthly. By the 2020s, it had slid to just 28%. By contrast, Republican belief in God has remained fairly consistent. In the 1990s, 67% believed in God with no doubts compared to 63% in the 2020s.

Q. How has socialism/communism affected the incidence of abortion around the world?

A. China’s ‘One-Child’ policy is the most extreme example of mass homicide by abortion. The plan was implemented by China’s Communist Chairman, Mao Zedong, running from 1971 through 2013. As depicted in the documentary, “One Child Nation” [above], which Pulse wrote on several years ago, China aborted 336 million babies, many killed after surviving birth.

One Chinese midwife said she was coerced into performing abortions:

“Many I induced alive, and killed. My hands trembled while I did it. I was the executioner. The state gave the order but I carried it out. I killed those babies.”

Another said, “If I could go back in time, I would do this work again,” rationalizing that without state-coerced abortion, cannibalism was inevitable. That’s a sure sign that communism and socialism are defective: the systems can’t feed their own people. In addition, the Chinese government sterilized some 200 million men and women to mitigate population growth to compensate for the material poverty wrought by their communist/socialist system.

Q. Surely no one on either end of the political spectrum in the U.S. could praise Mao, could they?

A. They could, and they do. Hasan Piker, a prominent socialist influencer in the U.S. with 3 million followers, calls Mao “one of the great leaders of this world.”

Q. China is an extreme case, right? Surely nothing like that could happen in the U.S., could it?

A. Sadly, elements of China’s policy could be introduced in the U.S. if the Democrat party successfully introduces Medicare For All as a single-payer health system. MFA would mandate taxpayer funded abortion and eliminate conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses and others with conscientious objections to participating in human abortion.

Q. Finally, what are the economic implications of socialism/communism when contrasted with free market economies?

A. One of the main reasons women give for having their abortions are personal finances. They don’t believe they can afford a child. Incomes in free market economies are higher than those in socialist/communist systems. Cuba verses Hong Kong presents a textbook example.

In 1961, Cuba embraced unabashed socialism while Hong Kong embraced unabashed free enterprise. Interestingly, Cuba owns some nice assets, such as productive agriculture thanks to their rich soil; such as 7% of the world’s Nickel and Cobalt reserves; such as 20 billion barrels of oil reserves (top 20 in the world); such as tourism, thanks to their beautiful beaches. And their people were well-educated.

By contrast, Hong Kong had nothing except a harbor and uneducated people. When the Castro brothers took over then-capitalist Cuba, how did they leverage their nation’s considerable assets? Under their new socialism/communism system, per capita GDP rose from about $2500 in 1961 to about $4000 by 2007. By contrast, Hong Kong’s per capita GDP grew from about the same starting point as Cuba in 1961 to over $30,000 by 2007.

Politicians of both political parties championed America’s free enterprise system until Democrats began a leftward lurch in the last 15 years or so. This is the same era in which pro-life protections proliferated in Red states, while declining in Blue states. Democratic socialism’s unspoken goal is to undo all those protections. If they succeed, millions of unique human beings made in God’s image will die at the hands of taxpayer-funded abortionists.

[What can YOU do to help the pro-life cause? Support Pulse with your gift today.]