The left seems to have a weird disdain for children in the womb. Honestly, I can’t put my finger on why. It’s just a hatred they seem to embrace. I say hatred because I’m having a hard time describing the absolute enthusiasm they have when it comes to killing something.

One of the arguments I see pop up from time to time is that the baby can be considered a parasite. I’ve addressed how a baby is not a parasite before in a previous article, and so I will proceed to quote myself:

For one, a baby in the womb is homospecific. This means that both mommy and baby are the same species, and mommy’s body is specifically geared to gestate a baby of her own species while it lives inside her. The same cannot be said of a tapeworm. A mother’s body naturally works to strengthen baby, help it grow, prepares for its arrival and departure, and even afterward works to sustain baby by providing it with milk and an instinctive bond that urges the mother to protect and love her baby.

A parasite does not get the same treatment. To the host body, the parasite is the enemy, and it will work hard to kill it. The parasite has a whole plethora of evasion strategies to avoid the plethora of weapons the host body uses against it. Like an episode of Tom and Jerry, the host and the parasite attempt consistently to harm the other, with the thriving parasite often getting the upper hand and making the host very sick.

Unlike the baby, however, the parasite has no intention to leave and be cuddled by its host, be dressed in cute clothes, or be celebrated with gender-reveal parties. It wants to stay put, feed off the host, and reproduce while it’s at it.

By the way, a baby does not reproduce inside the mother. Just thought I’d throw that tidbit in there.

I explain other ways a baby is not a parasite in the article, including “fetomaternal microchimerism” and the reduction of chances to get cancer. If you’d like to read the full thing, follow the link below.

(READ: How a Baby Is Not a Parasite: A Guide for Idiots)

But while I may have the info on why a baby is not a parasite, too many people on the left don’t seem to have that information either due to the fact that they haven’t thought to look for it, or know it and just don’t want to acknowledge it.

This is sad news for the socialist because I’ve got sour news for them. If they believe that a baby is a parasite because it feeds off a host body, namely the mother, then that’s exactly what a socialist is by their own definition.

A socialist is reliant on the system, and that system is reliant on the producers. A socialist system forces everyone to become a leech by providing them with government healthcare, education, and other services. However, you can’t make something out of nothing. The government has to have a source of production to take from in order to give to others. A socialist system is a leech that makes leeches and forces non-leaches to feed its leech offspring.

You can say that as a worker in a “worker’s system” that you’d be paying into it, thus relieving yourself of your leech title, but that’s just not the case. You’re still feeding off of someone else’s labor without their consent despite being a part of the host body. You’re forcing yourself on another through another and taking a piece of their production. What’s more, this is done under the threat of harm. If the producer refuses to provide, there will be punishments.

A socialist advocates for the seizure of production to be distributed among everyone, but not everyone wants what is being produced and what is being produced can’t be given to everyone in abundance. You harm the business which provides support for the general economy through free trade. In your quest to take what you thought should belong to you, you harmed the host body and made it weaker.

The socialist is a parasite.

If the left is so into eliminating parasites, then why doesn’t it feel that way about socialists?