Abortion, Poverty, and Private Property: From the Early Christians to John Locke

The High Cost of Children

Having a child and raising a child are expensive.  If you don’t have health insurance, the cost of giving birth in a hospital is about $15,000 nationwide,[1] though that varies across states.  In Alabama, it costs $15,162 on average; in Alaska, $18,748; in Arizona, $19,093; in California, over $26,000.[2]  A hospital C-section ranges from $7,500 – $14,500.[3]  

Baby formula costs $2,300, as of 2016.  But when we hit a shortage in May 2022, baby formula went up to $2900.  It was as much as $6,000 per month from a milk bank.[4] 

The cost of child care ranges from $4,000 – 10,000 per year.  Add in diapers, clothes, crib, toys, food, birthday parties, trips to museums and zoos, summer programs, lessons in art, sports, music, and language, gas to drive your kid places, and saving for college.  The financial reality can be staggering.  And what about the emotional side of parenting?  Or any challenges related to physical health, mental health, medication, special education, or other special needs?

Meanwhile abortion pills cost less than $400.  Surgical abortion in the clinic can cost from $400 to $2,000.  Faced by these facts, how do you feel?

The Average Woman Who Gets an Abortion: A Mother Who Wants To Be a Better Parent to the Children She Already Has

The average woman who gets an abortion is already a mother and wants to be a better parent to the children she already has.  Yet there is a misconception in Christian circles that women who get abortions are young and single people who use abortion as one birth control method among others to have sex without consequences, to just preserve their upward mobility.  While such women surely exist, the reality of who gets abortions challenges the broad assumption.  The New York Times reported in December 2021 that the typical abortion patient is already a mother, is in her late 20s, attended some college, has a low income, is unmarried, is in her first 6 weeks of pregnancy, is having her first abortion, and lives in a blue state.[5]  An international study from 2016 published in The Lancet found that globally, 25 percent of all pregnancies now end in abortion, and in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America, the majority of women who procure abortions are married.[6]  In the U.S., married women accounted for 14.1 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control.[7]  As of 2019, sixty percent of women who procure abortions are already mothers, and half of them have two or more children.[8]  Many women are thus never-married or divorced and co-parenting.  These women sought abortions to be better mothers to the children they already have.  The statistic suggests that the cost of raising children is a factor even in the conservative ideal of the two-parent family, and even more in the situation of co-parenting.

Poverty Is a Driving Factor of Abortion  

Poverty is a driving factor for why women choose abortion.  Indeed, women in poverty account for a disproportionately large share of abortion.  Women in poverty have three times the abortion rate as woman not in poverty.[9]  From 2000 – 2008, 42.4 percent of abortions were procured by women in poverty, even though people under the poverty line make up only 15 percent of people.[10]  The reasons are understandable.  The physical, psychological, and financial costs of poverty are staggering.  Women in poverty face unusual physical and economic pressures to live with a boyfriend, risking unintended pregnancy.  Women worry more for their physical safety.  They are paid ~80 cents for every dollar men are paid in the aggregate (for the same work, the gap is much narrower),[11] or 61.8 cents if they are black, or 54.5 cents if they are Hispanic.[12]  Women are charged more than men for cars, car insurance, mortgages, clothes, dry-cleaning, haircuts, and even deodorant.[13]  Women are more than twice as likely than men to be unpaid caregivers to older adults in the home.[14]  Workplace discrimination and family commitments contribute to a large gap in poverty rates between women and men that begins at 18–24 years of age, narrows with age but never closes, and then widens dramatically in old age.[15]  Angela Davis observed that for many white women, an abortion might mean access to jobs, higher wages, or better schools, while for many black and Latina women, an abortion means sparing a child from sharing the miseries they cannot escape.[16] 

Evangelicals Tend to Blame the Victim

Unfortunately, white evangelical Christians are more likely than the non-religious to blame poverty on “lack of effort,” including sexual conduct.  In one 2017 study done by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation, among Americans who identified as atheist, agnostic, or without a religious affiliation, 65 percent said “difficult circumstances” were to blame for a person’s poverty, compared to 31 percent who said “lack of effort” was chiefly to blame.  By comparison, 46 percent of all Christians, and 53 percent of white evangelicals said that “lack of effort” was the chief cause.[17]  If those percentages hold constant nationwide, then the odds are 3.2 to 1 that white evangelicals, compared to the non-religious, will say “lack of effort” causes poverty.  Many white evangelicals and other conservatives criticize the welfare state because they believe it subsidizes an anti-family ethic, promotes abortion, while creating dependency on “government handouts.” 

Early Christians Made Allowances for Poverty When It Came to Infanticide

However, here is a striking difference between the Christians of today and the Christians of yesterday.  The early Christians used a pastoral and big-picture approach which included sensitivity to poverty.  Basil of Caesarea said that if a woman abandons “her newborn child uncared-for on the road, if, although she was really able to save it, she disregarded it, either thinking in this way to conceal her sin or scheming in some entirely brutal and inhuman manner, let her be judged as for murder. [But] If she was unable to protect it and the child perished through destitution and the want of necessities of life, the mother is to be pardoned.”[18]

Basil was speaking of church discipline for various actions – basically, calling for some form of penitential repentance while withholding the eucharist.  We see Christian leaders like Basil being sensitive to poverty as an understandable reason for a mother—and presumably a father when he was involved in the decision—to abandon an infant.  In other words, they saw the problem not just as a personal issue, but also a social issue.  One’s social context affects personal choices.  To be in poverty made an allowance for infanticide, and presumably, abortion.

Early Christians Believed that God’s Creation Vision Made Poverty Unjust

The early Christians believed that every human being was supposed to have a share of “dominion” in creation, and be nourished by creation, as well.  That conviction came from Genesis 1.  Because the earth is the Lord’s (Genesis 1:26 – 28; Psalm 24:1; 1 Corinthians 10:26), the fruit of the earth belongs to all.

Basil of Caesarea (329–379 AD): “That bread which you keep belongs to the hungry; that coat which you preserve in your wardrobe, to the naked; those shoes which are rotting in your possession, to the shoeless; that gold which you have hidden in the ground, to the needy.  Wherefore, as often as you were able to help others, and refused, so often did you do them wrong.  If that were true which you have affirmed, that you have obeyed the commandment of love from youth, and have given to everyone as much as to yourself, whence, I ask, have you all this wealth?  For the care of the poor consumes wealth, when each one receives a little for one’s needs, and all owners distribute their means simultaneously for the care of the needy.  Hence, whoever loves the neighbor as oneself, will possess no more than one’s neighbor.”[19] 

Gregory of Nyssa (c.335–c.395 AD): “You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by Him.  For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command… What price did you put on reason?  How [much money] did you pay as a fair price for the image of God?  For how [much money] have you sold the nature specially formed by God?  God said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness.””[20] 

Ambrose of Milan (340–397 AD): “Why do the injuries to nature delight you?  For all has the world been created, which you few rich are trying to keep for yourselves . . . When giving to the poor, you are not giving him what is yours; rather, you are paying him back what is his. Indeed, what is common to all, and has been given to all to make use of, you have usurped for yourselves alone.  The earth belongs to all, and not only to the rich . . . You are paying back, therefore, your debt; you are not giving gratuitously what you do not owe.”[21]  Also:  “Why do you drive out the fellow sharers of nature, and claim it all for yourselves?  The earth was made for all, rich and poor, in common.  Why do you rich claim it as your exclusive right?  The soil was given to the rich and poor in common—wherefore, oh, ye rich, do you unjustly claim it for yourselves alone?  Nature gave all things in common for the use of all; usurpation created private rights.  Property hath no rights.  The earth is the Lord’s, and we are his offspring.  The pagans hold earth as property.  They do blaspheme God.”[22]

John Chrysostom of Constantinople (340–407 AD): “Can you, ascending through many generations, show the acquisition [of your wealth to be] just?  It cannot be.  The root and origin of it must have been injustice.  Why?  God in the beginning did not make one man rich and another poor . . . Are not the earth and the fullness thereof the Lord’s?  If, therefore, our possessions are the common gift of the Lord, they belong also to our fellows, for all the things of the Lord are common.”[23]

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD): “The superfluities of the rich are the necessaries of the poor.  They who possess superfluities, possess the goods of others.”[24]  And:  “God commands sharing not as being from the property of them whom He commands, but as being from His own property.”[25]

Gregory I of Rome (c.540–604 AD): “In vain do they think themselves innocent who appropriate to their own use alone those goods which God gave in common; by not giving to others that which they themselves receive, they become homicides and murderers, inasmuch as in keeping for themselves those things which would alleviate the sufferings of the poor, we may say that every day they cause the death of as many persons as they might have fed and did not. When, therefore, we offer the means of living to the indigent, we do not give them anything of ours, but that which of right belongs to them. It is less a work of mercy which we perform than the payment of a debt.”[26]

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 AD), the most esteemed of Roman Catholic medieval theologians, continued this interpretation: “In cases of need, all things are common property.  There is no sin in taking private property when need has made it common.”[27]

What God Gives Freely to All Doesn’t Need to Be “Earned”

The quotes above demonstrate the Orthodox and Catholic stance on Genesis 1, that God gifted the earth to all human beings in common, before they did any work or technological development, and whether they did any at all.  Gregory of Nyssa’s invocation of “natural law” is especially intriguing, since he anchors it in Genesis 1, uses it as an argument against chattel slavery and for broad distributive economic justice.  Ambrose’s perception that “nature” is violated by poverty expresses the same idea.  The earth is the Lord’s, and the fruit of the earth belong to all.

Why American Protestants’ View of Wealth Comes from John Locke’s Wrong Interpretation of Creation

The American view of “possession” and private property can be traced back to John Locke’s erroneous reinterpretation of Genesis 1 and God’s creation vision.  English Protestant theologian and political philosopher John Locke, who is often regarded as an inspiration for the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution, knowingly deviated from this consensus from the early to medieval Christians.  In his work, Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke draws out his notion of “property” and those entitled to property from his novel reading of Genesis 1.

“God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniencies [sic] of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational, (and labour was to be his title to [land];) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.”[28]

Locke argued that according to Genesis 1, God gave land in common at first, but intended a shift of ownership to those who practice a certain kind of “labor.”  In Locke’s mind, God’s command to subdue and cultivate the land was synonymous with European-style settled agriculture and “improvement.”  For Locke, labor entitled people to property because, in his reading of Scripture, God did not want the land to remain “uncultivated” and “wild”, but wanted the land to be used for “fruitful” production. Therefore, Locke asserted that land should be given to those who are “industrious” and “rational”—those capable of “working the land.” 

Locke’s View Excluded “the Lazy” and “the Undeserving”

Locke and his intellectual heirs used this view to exclude people they regarded as “lazy” or “undeserving.”  For instance, Locke intentionally misrepresented Native Americans, even though he had better information in his own personal library.[29]  He said they were not entitled to the land because they did not “labor in” or “improve” it.[30]  Using the white Englishman as the exemplar of labor and industry, Locke asserted that Native Americans waste the gift of rich lands.  In his view, they refused to improve it by labor.  In effect, John Locke became one of the first white people to accuse non-white people of “laziness”; his ideology of land acquisition required it.  Of course, Locke also asserted that parents should be able to pass down all of their wealth to their children so it could become their “private property,” even though they did not do anything to earn it.

Locke’s View of Wealth and Meritocracy Drives the Abortion Rate Up

Locke’s influence on the United States is hard to overestimate, not least because his views influence conservative and white evangelical views about economic public policy that drive the abortion rate up.[31]  In early American history, Protestants and other non-Catholics could not look to the Catholic Popes’ “Doctrine of Discovery”[32] as their justification for seizing Native American land, they turned to Locke’s novel interpretation of the biblical text.  In modern times, libertarians, or “classical liberals,” and private property absolutists, draw on John Locke to argue for a minimal state that only enforces contracts.  Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro went on PragerU to say, “If we lose John Locke, we lose America.”[33]  They invoke Locke to argue against government regulation of business, even though chemical and fossil fuel companies place toxins in the environment which cause fetal abnormalities and birth defects.  They inherit Locke’s views to argue against social supports ranging from public education to assistance for disability and unemployment, even in the midst of baby formula shortages. 

John Locke contributes to white American evangelicals, especially, having a meritocratic-retributive ethic in public life.  I suspect Locke’s framework is one reason why they often take the view that economic hardship is the appropriate consequence for those who choose to have sex and get pregnant before they were truly wanting a child.  To them, economic hardship is the appropriate consequence for committing fornication and getting pregnant outside of marriage. 

[1] K. Aleisha Fetters, “What to Expect: Hospital Birth Costs,” Parents, March 18, 2021; https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/considering-baby/financing-family/what-to-expect-hospital-birth-costs/.

[2] Jessica Learish, “The Cost of Giving Birth in Each State,” CBS News, June 3, 2020; https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/cost-giving-birth-in-united-states/.

[3] K. Aleisha Fetters, “What to Expect: Hospital Birth Costs,” Parents, March 18, 2021; https://www.parents.com/pregnancy/considering-baby/financing-family/what-to-expect-hospital-birth-costs/.

[4] “Cost of Baby Formula for One Year,” Beyond Organic Baby, April 23, 2016; https://www.beyondorganicbaby.com/cost-of-baby-formula-for-one-year/.  See also Javier Simon, “The Cost of Baby Formula,” Smart Asset, May 16, 2022; https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/the-cost-of-baby-formula. 

[5] Margot Sanger-Katz, Claire Cain Miller, and Quoctrung Bui, Who Gets Abortions in America?  New York Times, Dec 14, 2021; https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html.

[6] Foster, “Unmet Need.”

[7] Jatlaoui et al., “Abortion Surveillance — U.S., 2016.”

[8] Margot Sanger-Katz, Claire Cain Miller, and Quoctrung Bui, Who Gets Abortions in America?  New York Times, Dec 14, 2021; https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html. 

[9] Finer, L.B. and M.R. Zolna, “Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011.” New England Journal of Medicine 374(9): 843–52. March 3, 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26962904/.

[10] Bruenig, Elizabeth Stoker, “Pro-Life, Anti-Poverty,” The American Conservative, July 14, 2020; https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/pro-life-anti-poverty/.

[11] Gould et al., “Gender Pay Gap”; Hegewisch and Tesfaselassie, “Gender Wage Gap.”  Payscale.com, “State.” 

[12] Hegewisch and Tesfaselassie, “Gender Wage Gap”; Mora and Dávila, “Hispanic–White Wage Gap.”

[13] Hill, “6 Times.”

[14] Johnson and Weiner, “Profile.”

[15] Gaines, “Straight Facts.”

[16] Davis, “Racism,” discussed by Roberts, Killing, 302.

[17] Zauzmer, “Christians,” and DeVega, “Christian Charity.”  Perhaps this contributes to why other communities are criminalizing homelessness:  See Fessler, “U.S. Cities,” who says in some cities, we are seeing “an increase in laws to criminalize homelessness, to make it illegal to camp, to panhandle, to, in fact, feed people–large groups of people–outside.”

[18] Basil of Caesarea, Epistle 217.52.

[19] Basil of Caesarea, quoted by Avila, Ownership, 50.  See also Saint Basil the Great On Social Justice, 69–70.

[20] Gregory of Nyssa, Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes. 

[21] Ambrose of Milan, quoted by Avila, Ownership, 66.

[22] Ambrose of Milan, quoted by Sinclair, Cry for Justice, 397.

[23] John Chrysostom, quoted by Avila, Ownership, 94 – 95.  See also Van de Weyer, On Living Simply: The Golden Voice of John Chrysostom.

[24] Augustine of Hippo, Expositions on the Psalms, on Psalm 147.12; also quoted by Sinclair, Cry for Justice, 398.  See also Ward, “Porters,” for an impressive, concise, and thorough summary of Augustine’s teachings on wealth and ownership.

[25] Augustine of Hippo, quoted in Avila, Ownership, 141.

[26] Gregory the Great, quoted in Herron, Caesar and Jesus, 111–112.

[27] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 66, Article 7.

[28] Locke, Second Treatise, ch.5, sec.41.

[29] Arneil, “All the World” shows how Locke relied very selectively on travel journals and books in his library for information about Native Americans to portray them unfavorably.

[30] Locke, Second Treatise, ch.5, sec.41 says, “There cannot be a clearer demonstration of any thing, than several nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land, and poor in all the comforts of life; whom nature having furnished as liberally as any other people, with the materials of plenty, i.e. a fruitful soil, apt to produce in abundance, what might serve for food, raiment, and delight; yet for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part of the conveniencies we enjoy: and a king of a large and fruitful territory there, feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day-labourer in England.” (italics mine)

[31]  Miura, John Locke writes a devastating and integrated analysis of Locke summarizing post-colonial scholarship on Locke, and proposes a non-conquest-oriented liberalism.  For a shorter treatment, see Quiggin, “John Locke” who argues that Locke legitimized expropriation and enslavement, noting that the SCOTUS case Keto v. City of New London, Connecticut (2005) relied on faulty Lockean assumptions, which is indicative of how much American jurisprudence rests on Locke.

[32] The “Doctrine of Discovery” refers to a body of Papal declarations from 1452 into the early 1500s.  They began with Pope Nicholas V, Papal Bull Dum Diversas of June 18, 1452, who said:  “We…granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit.”  Translation sourced via http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ (emphasis mine).  See Charles and Rah, Unsettling Truths.

[33] Ben Shapiro and PragerU, “If We Lose John Locke, We Lose America,” PragerU, July 20, 2020; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw3y-kXvnwE