What I don't understand about the working class and abortion

[Kizzuwanda]

I am a socialist who is no fan of abortions but I'm politically pro-choice. Most socialist and communist groups are very pro-choice and consider that abortion is not just a gender issue but a class issue. Their general thesis is that bans on abortion are a tool of the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat. If that thesis is true than the rich should be overwhelmingly anti-abortion and the poor overwhelmingly pro-abortion.. But if we look at actual surveys we see the opposite, such as in this 2018 survey: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

I can understand that the poor may internalize their oppression, but why do they seem to support their oppression MORE than the rich do on this particular issue?

[Goldwater]

Have you considered the possibility that those groups might be wrong?

[Senator Incitatus]

On my phone, so apologies for the disjointed argument, but hopefully my point comes through:

Abortion and the sexual revolution writ large are the exclusive project of the ruling class, completely unfit for working class life and frankly, reality. Abortion (and the childless life) is only advantageous to the working class insofar as the responsibility of the upper class to provide care is ignored. It’s the modern, liberal destruction of the social fabric that makes parenthood a financial and spiritual burden borne only by the parents themselves, and thus too costly for the poor. The proletariat would prefer to be able to raise their kids, since parenthood is inherently rewarding rather than oppressive.

The working class are also more likely to understand and affirm the basic dignity of every life and sexual responsibility. The rich liberal (or at least the striving class) sees children as an obstacle to greater riches and have never been held responsible for their actions, sexual or otherwise. Poor children especially are only seen as drags on society. Their idea of eliminating poverty is killing poor kids, not providing for them.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

On my phone, so apologies for the disjointed argument, but hopefully my point comes through:

Abortion and the sexual revolution writ large are the exclusive project of the ruling class, completely unfit for working class life and frankly, reality. Abortion (and the childless life) is only advantageous to the working class insofar as the responsibility of the upper class to provide care is ignored. It’s the modern, liberal destruction of the social fabric that makes parenthood a financial and spiritual burden borne only by the parents themselves, and thus too costly for the poor. The proletariat would prefer to be able to raise their kids, since parenthood is inherently rewarding rather than oppressive.

The working class are also more likely to understand and affirm the basic dignity of every life and sexual responsibility. The rich liberal (or at least the striving class) sees children as an obstacle to greater riches and have never been held responsible for their actions, sexual or otherwise. Poor children especially are only seen as drags on society. Their idea of eliminating poverty is killing poor kids, not providing for them.

Funny, that describes most Republicans.

[dead0man]

no it doesn't

[Senator Incitatus]

Funny, that describes most Republicans.

And if it does?

[DC Al Fine]

I am a socialist who is no fan of abortions but I'm politically pro-choice. Most socialist and communist groups are very pro-choice and consider that abortion is not just a gender issue but a class issue. Their general thesis is that bans on abortion are a tool of the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat. If that thesis is true than the rich should be overwhelmingly anti-abortion and the poor overwhelmingly pro-abortion.. But if we look at actual surveys we see the opposite, such as in this 2018 survey: https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

I can understand that the poor may internalize their oppression, but why do they seem to support their oppression MORE than the rich do on this particular issue?

Have you considered the possibility that those groups might be wrong?

This. Even from a Marxist point of view, it seems like you could just as plausibly argue that abortion is a way for the bougeoisie to keep the proles from getting to numerous and miserable, thus preventing the revolution etc.

Perhaps the Marxist theorists have gotten too prosperous and have unknowingly taken on some capitalist morality

[Senator Incitatus]

Just wanted to come back to this thread and add that even though it's a perspective I do not wholeheartedly endorse, Lenin spoke extensively on sexual morality, which can be found here under that heading:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm

Although I am nothing but a gloomy ascetic, the so-called ‘new sexual life’ of the youth – and sometimes of the old – often seems to me to be purely bourgeois, an extension of bourgeois brothels. That has nothing whatever in common with freedom of love as we communists understand it. You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desires, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. This glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad. It has proved fatal to many young boys and girls. Its adherents maintain that it is Marxist. But thanks for such Marxism which directly and immediately attributes all phenomena and changes in the ideological superstructure of society to its economic basis! Matters aren’t quite as simple as that. A certain Frederick Engels pointed that out a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.

I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and, moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order. In his Origin of the Family Engels showed how significant is the development and refinement of the general sex urge into individual sex love. The relations of the sexes to each other are not simply an expression of the play of forces between the economics of society and a physical need, isolated in thought, by study, from the physiological aspect.

[Medal506]

On my phone, so apologies for the disjointed argument, but hopefully my point comes through:

Abortion and the sexual revolution writ large are the exclusive project of the ruling class, completely unfit for working class life and frankly, reality. Abortion (and the childless life) is only advantageous to the working class insofar as the responsibility of the upper class to provide care is ignored. It’s the modern, liberal destruction of the social fabric that makes parenthood a financial and spiritual burden borne only by the parents themselves, and thus too costly for the poor. The proletariat would prefer to be able to raise their kids, since parenthood is inherently rewarding rather than oppressive.

The working class are also more likely to understand and affirm the basic dignity of every life and sexual responsibility. The rich liberal (or at least the striving class) sees children as an obstacle to greater riches and have never been held responsible for their actions, sexual or otherwise. Poor children especially are only seen as drags on society. Their idea of eliminating poverty is killing poor kids, not providing for them.

Funny, that describes most Feminists.

[Medal506]

Poorer people understand that abortion is overwhelmingly used to kill babies of other poor people. That’s why they’re opposed to it.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Poorer people understand that abortion is overwhelmingly used to kill babies of other poor people. That’s why they’re opposed to it.

Lol, as if most poor people really care about other poor people who aren't like them.

[Ilhan Apologist]

Poorer people understand that abortion is overwhelmingly used to kill babies of other poor people. That’s why they’re opposed to it.

Lol, as if most poor people really care about other poor people who aren't like them.

Ugh, don't act as if that's a poor people problem.