Pro-Lifers aren’t strangers to fierce debate. But lately an argument has trended that even the most ardent advocates for the preborn have found difficult to respond to.

It goes something like this: Life is not limited to being born; it also entails growing up and becoming a productive member of society. To be truly pro-life, then, it is not sufficient to be anti-abortion. You must also be for financially supporting unwed mothers who can’t afford a baby, for providing health care and education for everyone so that they can live fruitful lives, for abolishing the death penalty and eliminating war. And, unless you are for all of these things, you cannot consider yourself pro-life. The meme has evolved to become a litany of socialist demands, which omit, ironically, putting an end to abortion. 

Even good Pro-Lifers have a tough time refuting these claims because they are, after all, pro-life, and these things certainly have to do with improving lives. But this is not a pro-life argument; it is a pro-socialist argument, and socialism is in many ways anti-life. Here’s why:

1. Being anti-abortion is crucial to being pro-life.

Abortion advocates are quick to strip Pro-Lifers of their label and call them just ‘anti-abortion’ or ‘pro-birth’ as if to minimize their effect. True, most Pro-Lifers are indeed focused on ending abortion. But this should not be to their discredit. Being anti-abortion has been at the crux of the Pro-Life Movement stretching back to its origins in Cardinal Martin’s Right to Life League. Other causes such as ending the death penalty and unjust wars have been added to the movement, but the thrust has always been about ending abortion.

2. The ‘life’ in ‘pro-life’ is about the right to life, nothing more.

It is easy to look at the term ‘pro-life’ and think of all the wonderful things one can do in life—education, health care, climate-controlled work conditions, vacations, etc. After all, the phrase is intentionally vague and expansive. But, it cannot possibly mean a guarantee to everything someone needs in life, which would be impractical and, in the end, contradictory.

Being pro-life is about the right to life, and, like all proper rights, the right to life is a negative not a positive right. That means that no one should be able to take it away. It does not mean that you are owed anything positive from others such as health care, education, or jet skiing in the Bahamas. Positive rights are nice, but they’re unworkable because there is really no end to what people will demand. Ultimately, positive rights interfere with negative rights since positive rights force people to provide the goods and services that the masses demand, thus violating their negative rights.

3. If a baby isn’t born, you can’t improve its life.

Abortion advocates claim that Pro-Lifers only care about babies being born and don’t care at all about what happens to the baby after it’s born. The smear is intended to paint Pro-Lifers as inhumane in hopes they’ll forget their campaign against abortion and take up some form of charity. Of course, this is ludicrous. Not only are Pro-Lifers some of the most giving persons in all realms of charity, there is no more important place to direct one’s charity than in the Pro-Life Movement.

Life is the first and most important right—without it, there are no others. Only by being anti-abortion can one truly be pro-education and pro-health care and all the rest. Not only that, but the preborn are the most vulnerable among us. Since they cannot defend themselves, it is essential for others to advocate for them. Even if a Pro-Lifer cares only about ending abortion, and not about what happens after birth, he at least opens the door to the other charities. 

4. Socialism is demonstrably opposed to life.

Promoting open borders, affordable housing, safety nets, and the rest might seem like a pro-life argument on the surface. History proves otherwise. The main problem is that socialist programs such as these all require coercion. Money has to be taken from some in order to be given to those in need. In extreme cases, individuals are forced to perform duties for the state or for the people against their will. Fundamentally, socialism violates the right to liberty. 

This has reliably led to a diminished view of life. Socialism is essentially a materialist system that is incompatible with Church teaching on free will, family, and subsidiarity. Materialism favors the utilitarian view that abortion and euthinasia are justified to improve the quality of life for the majority. We can see this manifest in the high abortion rates of former Soviet states in Eastern Europe. Ultimately, focusing on social welfare might seem pro-life, but it fosters a mentality that ends up being rather anti-life.

Conclusion.

In recent years, studies have shown more people consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. This change in attitude can be attributed to the technical advances that have allowed us to see babies living and breathing in the womb and also reports of the grizzly details of the practice of abortion. Naturally, as the pro-life stance grows more compelling, abortion advocates can be seen altering their tactics. The plea for a comprehensive view of what it means to be pro-life is part of this change in tactics. Some will even argue that abortion is pro-life because keeping abortion legal reduces the need for abortion.

True Pro-Lifers are not fooled. They know that this is a thinly veiled push for a culture of death. In the end, Pro-Choicers know it too.