Making Birth Free and the Universal Destination of Goods

The right to life is inviolable, and several societal requirements stem from that right. Most prominent among those requirements is the protection of innocent lives from illness, starvation, and death. There are no subdivisions in this category of innocent lives - by which I mean, there is no innocent life whose suffering is not a tragedy. So, as I discuss these duties with a particular focus on the youngest innocent lives, please allow yourself to consider how what I discuss can be applied to other situations as well.

The concept of a universal destination of goods to the poor is not often discussed but it is an important aspect of Catholic social teaching that states, “The goods of creation are destined for the entire human race” (Catechism 2402). I believe the reason it is not often discussed is because, upon first hearing the basic idea many people immediately associate it with the tenets of socialism and fear that it implies a stripping of private property. This is not the case. In fact, the Catechism has this to say on the subject:

“The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.” (Catechism 2402)

This is a key passage for understanding the message of this article. The second sentence through to the second to last sentence remind us that personal property is a right that protects individuals and stabilizes society. Discussion of those passages would center around the concept of Distributism, espoused by men like G.K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc in the early twentieth century. The idea of an ownership economy is very interesting, but not the focus of this article.

Instead, I would like to focus on the first and last sentences. First, that God’s creation is for all humanity speaks to the fact that, in its most natural form, the planet God gave us is capable of meeting the basic needs all humanity has for survival - that is, food, water, shelter, and community. These natural goods can and have been obtained without any advance of industry or philosophy, though agriculture certainly helped. As such, to be human on Earth is to have a right to enough of these basic goods to be sustained (though people do deserve more than survival).

The last sentence speaks to the conclusion I hope to convince the reader of here. It asserts that the reason for the protection of private property is to orient us toward a natural solidarity - more clearly stated as a community. Truly, the correctly ordered reason man is driven to claim land and make it his own is not simply for individual protection and enrichment, but that he might have neighbors and live in a community. In the past, such a community would be a center of the economy: goods for goods, services for services, and so on. One neighbor might be a craftsman, another a farmer, and another a doctor, tending to the medical needs of his or her neighbors. Society does not reflect that sort of economy anymore, but it could reflect that kind of community, in one aspect in particular: birth.

As the title suggests, I believe the Catholic principle of the universal destination of goods to the poor should lead us to conclude that birth must be made free. My reasoning focuses almost entirely on the child but there are many reasons to support the parents. They are performing a societal good in keeping the community growing and sustaining the world for the next generation. Their sacrificial act should be supported in as many ways as possible long after birth has occurred. But gestation and birth, specifically, call for acts of natural solidarity - of community - wherein all who can contribute are compelled to. 

The unborn are our neighbors in need, poor in spirit as well as means. They are unable to grow alone, emerge from the womb alone, or eat alone. This radical poverty demands the aid of others. The principal responsibility belongs to the parent but that does not negate our responsibility to our neighbors, no matter how small. In fact, so great is the need of our youngest neighbors that our support must be equally great. That right to life, which we view as inviolable, must be supported entirely. The children themselves do the work of fulfilling the good of continued life and community, a natural good of God’s creation that we are called to support in solidarity.

As such, gestation and birth should be cost-free. Further, this should be done as a primary goal of our local, state, and national communities. 

Many will say that such support is the job of charities and I am familiar with and support several charities that do support women through birth and beyond. But while the work of these charities is vital, the primary provider of basic goods to those in need cannot be charity. As the early Church patriarch John Chrysostom said, “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.”

The right to life is due in justice because it is basic, inviolable, and part of the good of Creation. It is our duty, in solidarity with our fellow Man, to support that right and remove all barriers to obtaining it.