Tag: reverence for life



Last night I was watching an episode of Red Oaks, well, re-watching since we’re being honest here. The main character, David, bumps into one of his mom’s friends, who is pregnant. He asks, “Can I?” since he wants to touch her belly. She replies, “Of course.”

Why does David want to touch that pregnant belly? And why does she so readily consent? Surely he would not ask and she would not agree to this rather intimate contact under other circumstances. After all, they hardly know each other.

The more astute (or should I say woke) among you see where I’m going here. There’s life in that belly and we all have a stake in it. Historically, children have been a sort of public property* in the sense that everyone feels some responsibility and care for children even if they belong to strangers. Yet somehow these beings are not given the most basic human right before they exit the womb. Even animals are better protected from suffering. This and related contradictions will have to be resolved someday. On a personal note, I admit without hesitation or embarrassment that my own views on this matter have changed over the years, in no small measure because of posts and comments here on Ricochet.

A Bizarre Contradiction


feticideWhile abortion is legal throughout the US — with some restrictions varying state-by-state — fetal homicide (feticide) is not. In most states, it is treated as murder. How are the two different? Presumably, if the woman carrying the fetus consents to the feticide, then she’s just exercising choice. If she doesn’t consent, people go to jail.

Thirty-eight (38) states currently recognize the “unborn child” (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and twenty-three (23) of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.

Yet, paradoxically: