Child Sacrifice in 21st Century America

The Hebrew Bible is not for the squeamish. And its harshest maledictions are called down upon those who practiced the abomination of child-sacrifice.

Thus the Psalmist:

They sacrificed their sons and daughters to the demons/they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood.
Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the harlot in their doings.
Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his heritage.
… they were rebellious in their purposes, and were brought low because of their iniquity” (Psalm 106:38-40, 43).

And the prophet Ezekiel, delivering the word of the Lord:

And you took your sons and your daughters, whom you had borne to me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter that you slaughtered my children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?… Behold, therefore, I stretched out my hand against you, and diminished your allotted portion, and delivered you to the greed of your enemies… (Ezekiel 16:20-21, 27).

Thirty-nine years after Roe v. Wade created an unrestricted abortion license in the United States, and during the week when hundreds of thousands of Americans pray and march for life, all Americans ought to ponder these words—and the kind of country to which Roe v. Wade led.

It was supposed to be a country in which women were liberated; it became a country in which women were ever more the victims of predatory and sexually irresponsible men, left alone with their “rights” to find a technological “fix” to the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy. It was supposed to become a more humane country; it became a country in which morally coarsened pundits can describe as “extreme” and “weird” the faith-filled response of the Santorum family to the loss of a newborn shortly after birth. It was supposed to be a country of greater equality; it became a country in which the fantasies of those who believed that America was for white Anglo-Saxon Protestants only, with emphasis on “white,” were realized beyond the wildest imaginings of the most crazed racists and eugenicists of the 1920s.

These hard truths have too often been hidden, especially where abortion is widely prevalent. Thus it is to the immense credit of the New York-based Chiaroscuro Foundation that it has compelled the New York City Department of Health to itemize separately abortion and pregnancy statistics in its annual reports. The 2010 numbers, just released, would make both the Psalmist and Ezekiel blanch:

Of the 208,541 pregnancies in New York City in 2010, 83,750 were terminated by abortion: 4 in 10. Among non-Hispanic blacks, there were 38,574 abortions and 26,635 live births: thus for every 1,000 African-American babies born, 1,448 were aborted. Those numbers were even more chilling among non-Hispanic black teenagers: for every 1,000 African-American babies born to teenagers, 2,630 were aborted. The overall teenage abortion rate was 63 percent in a city where 16 percent of all pregnancies were teen pregnancies.

New York City is not America, of course. And there is encouragement on various fronts in the battle for life. The national abortion rate is down over the past several decades. Science has vindicated the pro-life position. The pro-life/pro-choice opinion balance has tilted, if slightly, in favor of the pro-life cause. Younger people are more likely to be pro-life than aging baby-boomers. Legislated regulation of the abortion industry has driven abortuaries out of business in many places.

Yet the fact remains that America is a country in which almost 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in the willful, violent death of the unborn child. And this slaughter of the innocents has been going on, often in higher percentages, for almost four decades.

As the Psalmist and Ezekiel might have told us, feeding the demons inevitably leads to a terrible hardening of sensibilities. The warnings from ancient Israel about where that hardening leads are worth pondering in this election year, and indeed in every year.

George Weigel


George Weigel is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., and the author, most recently, of The End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II⎯The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy.

  • galerouth


    FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman’s body.

    as a zygote, it invaded the woman’s uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B and HCG— so her body doesn’t kill it, steals her nutrients to survive, and causes her harm or potential death.

    “The placenta, It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]”

    “It is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species.” — Gale’s Science of Everyday Things.

    just like a parasitic twin —

    “an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it”

    pregnancy CAUSES HARM:

    since a man can kill his tapeworm at anytime– so should a woman abort unwanted, human-parasitic fetus, too.

    • trad_cat

      You are truely lost and deceived.

    • Justin

      you are working against God and this is VERY dangerous…your souls is in jeopardy of eternal separation from God. REPENT please. May God have mercy on you.

    • 42nd_philosopherking

      By your[galerouth] logic anything that relies on another for nourishment is parasitic, it relies on its host for existence and the host is often harmed by this connection.

      If we follow this reasoning, all persons on welfare are parasitic. They rely solely on the government for sustenance and cannot survive apart from that connection. The government is harmed by this relationship because it is spending valuable resources on people that are not contributing anything to said government. Therefore, they are parasites and can be killed.

      Your example of the tapeworm is very fitting in this instance as well because they are feeding off of the tax revenue of said country, the “food” of the government. Thus the government is within its rights to kill all persons on welfare, just as a man can kill a tapeworm, and a woman can kill her parasitic fetus.

    • Mary

      By this argument, if I dragged you off the street into my home, you invaded it.

      It is the action of the mother that causes the baby to be in a position where the trophoblast cells and her nutrients are needed to keep it alive.

    • Alecto

      My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
      my love as deep the more I give to thee,
      the more I have for love is infinite.

      This is the kind of love a mother has for her child. Factor that into your dismal science.

    • Alecto

      You ignored the most basic scientific fact of pregnancy. A baby is 50% mommy DNA + 50% daddy DNA. No parasite obtains half its genetic code from its host. From a purely scientific standpoint, no host is capable of producing its parasite, an organism genetically distinct from the host. Therefore, a baby is not a parasite.

      Sadly, I sense you have a story behind this which I cannot dismiss. Rarely are the emotions you display motivated by a passionate defense of science, but a personal battle. I feel pity for you and will pray that you find the peace which only comes from God.

  • galerouth



    NO HUMAN has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human’s body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that’s why you are not forced to donate your kidney—the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

    consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live.

    • Bob

      “Rights”………….what about the rights of the developing human being in the womb not be killed!

    • Mary

      You can not be forced to donate your kidney because it is wrong to hack apart someone else’s body even to save your own.

      And that would go double if you didn’t need it to live and it would kill the donor.

  • galerouth

    the bible supported abortion, that was done by a priest, in god’s name, in his holly temple!
    the 1984 NIV footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what “to thy thigh to rot, they belly to swell” meant: numbers 5:21 “or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness” to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.

    the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
    3.3.3 ATHEISM: A HISTORY OF GOD (Part 1)

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    galerouth’s posts here should be removed from this Catholic blog since they are nothing but satanic. They are so blatantly hostile to the faith that they should return to the netherworld from which they emanate.

  • Bob

    Great article, George!

    Galerouth: from the embryology text “The Developing Human”, used by top med schools. Obviously, the scientists who wrote the text are sure when life begins. THIS IS SCIENCE:
    “Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell – a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

  • Bob

    I don’t know, Galerouth, that in the womb ultrasound picture (ahhhh……science!) George has at the top of the article sure do look like a baby to me!

    The misuse of the word “parasite” to describe the baby in the womb as some type of attacking enemy that needs to be obliterated is just another example of the “diabolic ventriloquoy” employed by pro-abortion people.

    • Barbara

      God bless you, Bob, for your clear, concise and truth-filled response to Galerouth. All I can say is “AMEN!” and thank you!

  • Briana

    @Galerouth, let me first say that the human embryo is a human being. A being that has DNA from both its parents cannot be a parasite. Secondly, the baby never asked to be conceived in the first place. That was its parents’ doing, and they knew full well what the consequences of their actions could be. I don’t see how it is just for an innocent human being to be killed for something it never did.

  • Briana

    Moloch is rearing his ugly head again!

  • sibyl

    I agree with Deacon Ed that galerouth’s comments contain satanic lies. However, I think we should leave them right where they are — to remind ourselves of the extent of the falsehoods surrounding this ghoulish practice. There are whole websites devoted to “proving” that a developing baby is really a parasite! This is what we’re dealing with here. When I see comments like these, it reminds me that staying close to Our Lord is our protection and He is our strength.

    • Barbara

      Sibyl, I LOVE my beautiful “parasites,” who have grown into amazing young adults, one with 3 sons, who are also amazing human beings – and they ALWAYS were, from the moment of their conception! How blessed we are to have our children – “God’s statement that the world should go on…”

      • Pam

        Barbara, I love you response.

        • Pam


  • Bob

    “Pascal’s wager”: Bet on and live your life as if there is a God, galerouth, it’s much better than atheism! You’ll be much happier, trying to go against the Truth and justifying atheism must be exhausting.

  • MMC

    A baby is a parasite? What? So does that mean that a child outside the womb who breastfeeds is a parasite, too? They are completely dependent on you. What about a sick child? What about the disabled? Are they parasites too b/c they require your help to survive?

    Per the whole constitutional amendment junk…even the court in it’s decision admitted that if personhood were established the whole decision would “collapse”. The so-called “right to privacy” was supposedly taken from “emanations” and “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

    Finally (and this cracks me up by the way), have you even read Numbers chapter 5? Nowhere…and I mean NOWHERE does it mention miscarriage in any way, shape or form. The bloating you are talking about is from a ritual a priest performs on a wife if she is suspected of cheating on her husband. The bloated belly part refers to her bowels being swollen…not pregnancy…and only if she is guilty of committing adultery.

    You have obviously been led astray…please, please seek God…He loves you and wants you free and whole. God bless~

  • Tony Esolen

    It beggars the imagination, how deeply one must descend into evil, to believe that a child, the child dwelling in the womb of its mother, is nothing other than a poison ivy vine or a tapeworm. This is deeply sick. Of course it is not “science,” the foolish crutch of the age. No woman ends up with a child in her womb because she ate a bad meal or breathed in some stray spore. And no biology textbook would fail to distinguish between reproduction and attack by an invading organism.

    Why must we put up with these stupidities? It’s always the same, though. People with a tiny bit of brain and a tiny bit of miseducation hold forth on a religion they know nothing at all about. Of course it is all about sex. Back in the day, if a ballplayer didn’t swear or drink booze, his teammates might stick him with the half-jocular nickname “Preacher” or “Deacon.” That was a more or less harmless version of what goes on now. Drunks might tease a guy who doesn’t get drunk, but people who are devoted to the dissolution and dissipation of the sexual revolution deeply resent it if anybody holds to a more human and noble way of life. This is why Rick Santorum, who is a very ordinary Catholic, is called a religious “lunatic,” by a bunch of wolves baying at the moon.

    So — from the miseducated, we hear that people in the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat (they knew it was round); that men went a-crusading for money (they knew they would possibly lose all their worldly possessions if not their lives); that Christians believe the world is 8000 years old (Augustine had long ago suggested otherwise); that Christianity has held women back (Christianity is what first gave women the freedom and esteem they deserve); that Christians hate the body (Christians believe the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit); it simply goes on and on and on. If Christians would only say, “Hey worldlings, go ahead and lead whatever form of rotten life you feel like leading this decade — for it does vary from place to place and age to age. We won’t say anything.” Then nobody would be slandering Christians.

    • Sarto

      Professor Esalon, I have come to believe, after long pondering about our moral decisions, that much if not most of our moral conclusions depend, not on some logical discussion going from point a to point b, but on the deeper “story” we are living which is made up of deep commitments and the way we arrange our values.

      Galerouth’s disgusting conclusions are based on the story she is telling to herself about the meaning of life, and the way she has arranged a series of crucial values. Clearly, at the very top of her value list, is freedom. Somewhere further down is life. Human life might find a place somewhere below the life of pets and the life of baby seals.

      Crisis is rightly appalled, because the story it’s readers have chosen to live is Christ, crucified and risen, and from that perspective we arrange our values, put life before freedom, and talk to ourselves about the meaning of human prospering and how it is accomplished

      But even within devout Catholicism, people arrange their values in different ways. William Simon, who served on Reagan’s cabinet as Secretary of the Treasury, was proud to call himself Catholic. But when the American bishops came out with their letter on the Economy written from the perspective of Papal Encyclicals, he gave them a stern lecture. Then he went out with a carefully conceived business plan. He bought key businesses in the glass industry, using the business themselves as collateral, sold off their capital goods to repay his loans, set up dummy corporations to pick the skeleton, declared bankruptcy, put tens of thousands of men out of work, sent the glass industry to Mexico and places beyond–and made milions of dollars. Now here was a Catholic who claimed Christ, who had his own list of what is a value and what is not, and lived a story I would say is not Christian. I believe he and the Lord had a discussion about that. I fondly hope he will get to heaven–after he has explained to each devastated family why it was so important for him to destroy their jobs. Of course, he could get to heaven in a minute if he would just say “I am so sorry.”

  • Art ND’76


    From reading your article’s title I was hoping for a comparison based more on the striking similarity of the motivation for child sacrifice in ancient times versus the motivation for abortion now.

    Isn’t it true that ancient child sacrifice existed ultimately to procure from the gods more favorable material circumstances?

    Isn’t it true that modern abortion exists ultimately to “help” the woman do away with her unwanted pregnancy so that she will be materially better off?

    I think both are equally monstrous, and curiously enough, neither one helps the long term material circumstances of the society in which they occur. In ancient times, child sacrifice meant fewer farm workers and solders and hence less prosperity. In modern times, pervasive abortion on demand leads to not having enough young people to support those too old to work.

  • Aj-10

    Amen George; you should be our President of this country!