Abortion Is NOT Child Sacrifice  🔗 **Source:** [Abortion Is NOT Child Sacrifice](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU) > [!note]+ Document Notes > --- > tags: [biblical-scholarship, hermeneutics, hebrew-bible, religion-and-politics, child-sacrifice, textual-criticism] > author: YouTube > source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU > date created: 2026-06-22 00:00 > --- > # 🏷️ Title: Abortion is NOT child sacrifice > ## 🧭 Table of Contents > - [📝 Summary](#-summary) > - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) > - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) > - [📚 References](#-references) > - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) > - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) > - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) > - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) > - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) > - [❓ Questions](#-questions) > - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) > - [💡 Implications](#-implications) > - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) > - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) > - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) > - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) > - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) > - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) > ### 🔗 References > - [Data Over Dogma podcast/channel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU) > - [Data Over Dogma Patreon](https://patreon.com/dataoverdogma) > ## 📝 Summary > - Dan McClellan and Dan Beecher (Data Over Dogma) rebut Senator Mike Lee's social-media framing of abortion as child sacrifice to "Moloch." > - It matters because the rhetoric weaponizes a contested biblical-scholarship claim to mark a political identity boundary, conflating two distinct categories. > - Key stakeholders: biblical scholars, the religious right, abortion-rights advocates, and a public that takes the Moloch image at face value. > - Risks and tradeoffs: a confident scholarly counter-claim (that no deity named Moloch existed and that the Hebrew Bible itself contains child-sacrifice commands) is itself contested and arrives with overt political framing that can undercut its persuasive reach. > - Bottom line: the hosts argue the abortion-as-child-sacrifice equation collapses a clear textual distinction between fetus and born person, and that the "Moloch" deity is most likely a mistranslated sacrifice-type noun. > ## 📖 Main Content > - The hosts argue Mike Lee's "altar to Moloch" meme functions as a political dog whistle equating abortion with child sacrifice and, by extension, casting abortion-rights supporters as evil. > - Core textual claim 1: abortion occurs before birth, child sacrifice after birth, so the equation conflates two different categories of being. > - Core textual claim 2: the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 21–22 fine-vs-death-penalty passage) treats a fetus as property recompensed by a fine, while the injured mother's death is a capital matter — implying differential legal-moral status. (This reading of Exodus 21:22–25 is contested among scholars; some translations and interpreters read the passage as protecting fetal life.) > - Core textual claim 3: "Molech/Moloch" is most plausibly a common noun for a *molk* sacrifice type, not a deity name — supported by Carthaginian (Punic) inscriptions describing a *molk* offering to Baal alongside infant remains. > - Core textual claim 4: the apparent deity reference in 1 Kings 11:7 ("Molech, the abomination of the Ammonites") is a textual corruption — the Ammonite god was Milcom (1 Kings 11:5), and the final *mem* dropping off MLK left a form read as "Molech"; the Septuagint reads "their king." > - Core textual claim 5: the hosts contend the god of Israel himself demands child sacrifice in some strata — Exodus 22:29–30 ("the firstborn of your sons you shall give to me"), with later passages (Exodus 13, 34; Numbers) renegotiating it via redemption or priestly dedication. > - Contextual claim: the hosts attribute the modern abortion-as-defining-evil stance to a late-1970s/early-1980s political construction (Falwell, Weyrich), tied originally to defending segregated universities' funding — a historical thesis many historians support but which remains debated in emphasis. > - Uncertainties flagged by the hosts themselves: vowel reconstruction of MLK is "a very educated guess"; whether child sacrifice was actually practiced in Israel lacks supporting data; the Akedah's outcome is textually "fuzzy." > ### 🗒️ Notes > #### ⏱️ [00:00:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=53) Framing: Mike Lee and Moloch > - The episode's hook is Senator Mike Lee tweeting "James Talarico will put you first on the altar to Moloch," with an animated burning-altar image. > - The hosts identify this as a right-wing dog whistle equating abortion with child sacrifice. > #### ⏱️ [00:03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=236) The category objection > - "abortion takes place before birth, child sacrifice takes place after birth. There's a big difference between those two things." > - Argues the equation rhetorically collapses a clear distinction. > #### ⏱️ [00:04:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=249) Fetus-as-property reading > - Exodus 21–22: accidental destruction of a fetus → fine paid to the husband; death of the mother → death penalty. > - Hosts read this as differential legal-moral personhood. (Contested; alternative readings exist.) > #### ⏱️ [00:05:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=313) Wedge-issue history > - Claims evangelicals and LDS held more nuanced abortion views before ~1980. > - Names Falwell and Weyrich; ties origin to defending university funding amid segregation. > #### ⏱️ [00:07:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=444) Moloch as sacrifice-type, not deity > - "there was never any deity named Moloch that was worshipped in the ancient world." > - Carthaginian inscriptions: *molk* offering to Baal + infant remains. > #### ⏱️ [00:08:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=485) Vowel reconstruction caveat > - Segolate noun pattern (consonant-vowel-consonant-consonant); Septuagint transliteration informs the vowels. > - Self-flagged as "a very very educated guess." > #### ⏱️ [00:09:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=587) The 1 Kings 11:7 corruption argument > - 11:5 names Milcom as the Ammonite god; 11:7 "Molech" is the same MLK with the final mem lost. > - Septuagint "fixes" it as "their king." > #### ⏱️ [00:10:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=645) The reversal: Israel's God demands child sacrifice > - Jesus framed as a child/offspring sacrifice; the Akedah (Isaac); the Exodus firstborn of Egypt. > - Exodus 22:29–30 read as a firstborn-son sacrifice command later renegotiated. > #### ⏱️ [00:13:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU?t=820) Motive argument > - Claims opponents also oppose sex education, contraception, and women's healthcare — the things that reduce abortion. > - Concludes the issue functions as an identity marker and wedge, not a sincere reduction goal. > ## 📚 References > - [Data Over Dogma (YouTube)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9O6745SmU) > - [Data Over Dogma Patreon](https://patreon.com/dataoverdogma) > - Primary texts cited: Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 23:10; Exodus 21–23; Exodus 13; Exodus 34; Exodus 22:29–30; 1 Kings 11:5–7; Numbers (redemption passages); Genesis 22 (Akedah). > - Comparative evidence cited: Punic *molk* inscriptions from Carthage; Septuagint readings. > ## 🗣️ Paraphrase > - The hosts open by ridiculing Mike Lee's Moloch meme, then argue its core equation — abortion equals child sacrifice — fails because the two acts target different categories (pre-birth vs. post-birth), and because the Hebrew Bible's own law assigns a fetus property status, not personhood. > - They then argue "Moloch" was never a god but a sacrifice-type noun, support this with Punic inscriptions and the 1 Kings 11 Milcom/Milcom-to-Molech corruption, and turn the tables by claiming Israel's own God commands or accepts child sacrifice in early strata, concluding Lee's rhetoric is ignorant, emotive, and politically motivated rather than scripturally grounded. > ## 📰 Newsletter > - Not applicable to this source — the content is a biblical-studies politics commentary, not WordPress-focused material. No WordPress learning resources, plugins, updates, or community items appear in the transcript. > ## ✅ Action Items > #### DevRel > - Not applicable to this source — no developer-relations, software, or commun [music] >> Hey everybody, I'm Dan McClellan. >> And I'm Dan Beecher. >> And this is Data Over Dogma where we increase public access to the academic study of the Bible and religion and we combat the spread of misinformation about the same. I hear it's pretty warm in at your place right now, Dan. Other other than the sweat pooling in the small of your back, how are things? >> I mean, I I think our viewers will will have the opportunity to watch and see if sweat >> [laughter] >> starts to form all over my body. >> you what, when I was in Rome last week, most of the time you could see a pool of sweat on my chest because it was 80° everywhere and I was >> Oh, I think you're exaggerating. It was only 30-something degrees. >> [laughter] >> No, it was it was 27° C in the the place where we were holding the conference and I was constantly like, can we turn the air con on? Can we get that? Can we bring it down? Can I get a degree off of that? >> [laughter] >> Because you can see the sweat through my shirt. I had to find a shirt that didn't show the sweat as well by the last day, but yeah, and the hotel room was was no better. Finally, I was just like, I'm just sleeping with the windows open. >> Yeah. >> Cuz and I I miraculously was not eaten by mosquitoes. >> Well, I you know, I would kill to have the heat that I'm currently in be because I was in a foreign land having a good time out there in in sunny Rome, but alas, no, my my AC just went out here in in downtown Salt Lake, so it's going to be a minute before I am cool. So, that's that there you go. Life But life is good. We're going to And we've got some fun things to talk about today. Today, we're going in with a twisted scripture. The next couple of episodes of this show are inspired by the same person. Is it Jesus? No. Is it Abraham? No. Noah? No. It's Senator Mike Lee. Uh our Senator >> if you're nasty. >> at base and he is nasty. Uh he's the only one who would call himself based because he's because why would you use that term? You're a sitting Senator in the in the United States Senate. >> Yes. >> Have some respect for your own institution. Anyway, we're not fans of >> [laughter] >> Mike Lee, you and I. Um but there have been a couple of things that he has done recently uh that that you and I have decided to jump on with. The first one and the one we're going to use today uh is he has tweeted multiple times invoking the name of Moloch. >> Yes. >> Uh so uh we're going to we're going to dive into uh twisted scripture. >> [music] >> Okay. So, twisted scripture, we got Moloch. I'm pretty sure that's one of the bad guys in the Masters of the Universe >> [laughter] >> uh movie. Is that right? Is he's the red one, right? The big >> pick him out. I couldn't pick him out. >> [laughter] >> Goat man Goat man was yeah. Uh >> Uh although if you're Mike Lee, it's cow man uh is [laughter] uh because my well, I'll just dive in with sort of what got me steaming about uh Mike Lee and about this concept uh which is that uh the Democrats like at the Democrats >> Mhm. >> recently tweeted a thing um talking about James Talarico. I think we've mentioned him on the show before, but >> Yeah. >> James Talarico is a is a senate candidate in Texas. He's got a slim like it's it's it's unlikely that he's that he's going to win, but if our Texas people get out there he might actually he might have a chance. So >> he's he's running against the guy who was impeached by his own parties House of Representatives for like a laundry list of of of corrupt things. Yes, corruption. He's he's openly corrupt. >> Openly and and kind of like excitedly corrupt. He revels in his corruption. >> Defiantly just a corrupt human being. Um and and yet we have a pastor and and all around decent human being and people are like he can't pull it off. Like what this is where we're at. >> Yeah, yeah. Way to go Texas. Way to make us believe that the the bad guy can win in that. However, so the Democrats tweet a picture of Talarico and they say Texas {colon} James Talarico is the only candidate who will put you first. Okay, fine. >> Yes. Not not the most earth-shattering rhetoric. >> No. No. >> You know. >> But I mean you know, that's the that's the Democrats for you. They uh constantly snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. But then Mike Lee decides to step in. And his play on it is James Talarico will put you first on the altar to Moloch. >> Yes. >> And and he included in that a uh >> a very famous image. It is used an awful lot on social media. >> Okay, yeah. It's >> This um kind of sepia-tone looking uh probably wood carving from the the late 19th century showing a bunch of worshipers and one of them is is holding out an infant and there's a a bronze hybrid anthropomorphic bovine statue seated there that has a >> that means a cow-headed dude. >> Cow-headed dude holding out arms and the idea is that the baby gets put on there and and is burnt up in the in the process. >> And this time Mike Lee went cool and had Grok make it animated. >> So oh did did >> [laughter] >> So like it's got like the the fire the flames are burning >> Oh gosh. Yeah, so that the flames are rising as and and the wind is is billowing the the robes. So good grief. >> So there you go. Uh Why is he why is Mike Lee talk First of all, I don't know what what What we should do is we should just mention that because I lefty that I am big guy who like likes you know, I follow politics from the left and I am a left-wing guy and there are dog whistles on the right that I know about and then there are dog whistles on the right that I don't know about. >> Cuz they're stupid. Like [laughter] >> Well Yeah. So this is a dog whistle that I wasn't aware of and so I had to do some research. >> Okay. >> And and the research that I did pointed to the idea that uh at least the political operatives on the right people like based Mike Lee are using the image of this this character that they believe that named Moloch as an abortion stand-in. >> Yes. >> People they're talking about the idea that abortion is uh they're framing it as a child sacrifice. >> Right. >> And so they're saying that the people who have abortions are sacrificing their children to an evil god. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> And and therefore they are evil and therefore Democrats are evil and therefore anyone who wants women to have reproductive rights are evil. >> Yes. >> And they're all worshipers of Moloch. >> Yes. >> Uh so Dan >> Yes, sir. >> how does that line up with the Bible? I feel like it I feel like he's got it right. Uh I I very least I went and looked up some scriptures and found for instance in 2 Kings uh the whole thing about you shall not give up any of your offspring to sacrifice them to and in the NRSVUE it says Molech. >> Molech or Moloch, yeah. >> So uh so there there you go. Right it's right there. Don't sacrifice your offspring to Molech. Uh so Mike Mike Lee is right and we should just end this. >> [laughter] >> The the problems with this rhetoric are are legion. Uh and and we can start with the fact that the the attempt to rhetorically equate abortion to child sacrifice is problematized by the fact that abortion takes place before birth, child sacrifice takes place after birth. >> [laughter] >> There's a big difference between those two things. >> Yeah. >> And there's also the problem of the fact that if we go look in the Hebrew Bible as we've discussed before on the program the Hebrew Bible does not treat a fetus as a full legal and moral person. It treats it as a piece of property. >> Yeah. >> Whose whose accidental destruction is recompensed by the payment of a fine. And in the exact same, uh, passage where it's saying, uh, the accidental destruction of a of a fetus is recompense with the payment of a fine, it says the accidental destruction of the mother who is injured in the act, uh, uh, >> Who who presumably is a fully born human. >> Yes, yes. Uh, that's the death penalty. >> Yeah. >> So, they they're drawing a pretty clear distinction between born humans and fetuses. One is is a full legal and moral person, the other is not, is property. And property of the husband cuz the fine is paid to the husband. >> Right. >> Um, and and this agrees with a lot of other ancient rhetoric where abortion is is primarily, um, punished legally as a property crime against the father. >> Mhm. >> In other words, when they didn't like abortion, it was because it was taking away the father's property. Uh, and but a father could cause that. In fact, in in most ancient societies, and uh, and we're not sure exactly what the situation would have been in Israel and Judah, uh, a father could expose, end the life of a newborn if he was not interested in it. So, so societies that said a woman can't have an abortion would have said a father could cause it. A father could, um, do these things. So, the there's a lot more complexity. The water is a lot muddier when it comes to what's going on with abortion in the Hebrew Bible. But what is very clear is that child sacrifice and abortion are two very different things. So, this is this is an attempt to rhetorically collapse a very clear distinction between two different types of, uh, beings. One, uh, a fetus and one, uh, a born human. I- it is a is a means for people to cheerlead to, uh, among their own group. It's it's a way to preach to the choir uh, by basically just ginning up this Oh, yeah, we think that abortion is child sacrifice. So, we're going to go out there and and just baffle thoughtful people capable of critical thought by by spreading this rhetoric around. >> Well, and let's let I you know, we have talked about this in the past, but it's important to note that the that the history of this is that evangelical Christians and and even, you know, my family the LDS and stuff had a far more nuanced and far less uh adamant view of abortion before around 1980, before the late '70s and early '80s >> Yeah. >> when they decided when you know, people in leadership positions on the right decided to use it as a political wedge issue, which they which it never had been before. And so, like most evangelicals, most most Baptists most most of like most of Americans other than Catholics were pretty meh about the whole thing. They didn't care. >> You You had like Criswell. I don't remember Criswell's first name, but I think this this was an evangelical leader who actually came out in support of Roe v. Wade. >> Right. >> And then over the next decade decided no, this is this is of the devil. And and in no small part because of the machinations of Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich and others who got together and concocted a plan to create this wedge issue to galvanize the rise of a religious right that would facilitate uh more right-wing authoritarian Christians in government. And initially their goal was to stop the government from taking away their funding because of the white supremacy that's governed their universities. Uh the the government was saying, "Hey, if you want funding, if you want students to be able to get loans and and grants and things like that, you have to allow black students in your universities." And and they were like, "I beg your pardon, sir?" And um uh you know, we're uh not going to have it. And so, that was kind of the catalyst for all of this. And um yeah, there's there are uh there's a lot of scholarship on on how the evangelical uh approach to feelings about abortion have evolved. And uh the LDS Church formally, officially endorses abortion in cases of uh incest, rape, uh and threats to the life of uh and the the long-term health of the mother. And so, there are It's It's a It's a grayer area. Um but, obviously, Mike Lee is using this as as an identity marker, as a flag that he can wave to rally around the troops to agree that uh James Tallarico is the devil incarnate. >> Right. And And And this is >> This is like the quintessential wedge issue for right-wing authoritarians. And I um Many listeners of the show will know that I ran for my state legislature twice in 2018 and 2020. And I don't know how many doors I knocked on and talked to people where we arrived at a point where they were like, "Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on most of these things over and against the other person." And they would even be like, "I know the other person is not going to listen to us and is more or less corrupt." But, they would say, "But, I could never vote for someone who approves of abortion." Like, that's in in terms of a wedge issue, that's the magic bullet. >> Yeah, they really did a good job wedging that one. >> Yes, this one is incredibly effective because you can do whatever you want. >> Yeah. >> And they will not vote for the other side because of abortion, because they have been conditioned to think that this is the ultimate disqualifier. Up to and including a serial adulterer, a rapist, >> Yeah. >> a pedophile, a serial sexual predator who is now talking about how much they love inflation and >> [laughter] >> makes a bunch of promises, lies about literally everything, looked at a solar eclipse. >> Yeah. >> Like they don't >> clear, we've switched off of Mike Lee to Trump. I'm just I just want to make sure that we're not making accusations against the wrong person or whatever. >> Right. Uh Mike Lee is is um, you know, far more intelligent than than Donald Trump is, but this is an illustration of >> Hello, Bar. >> Yeah. This is an illustration of the degree to which they will tolerate corruption, >> Mhm. >> immorality, pure evil rather than vote for someone who approves of abortion, wants abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. >> Right. >> And even promoting abortion, not saying not pro-abortion, just just pro the right. But I Okay, we've made that point. I want But I do want to get into who is this character of Moloch or Molech or what and what are we talking about here? >> This is not a character at all. There was There was a >> you, sir? >> I dare. I dare. >> I saw a picture. It was Yeah, there was a wood cutting move and everything. >> [laughter] >> Um there was never any deity named Moloch that was worshipped in the ancient world, at least as near as we can tell. And the references in the Hebrew Bible to Moloch as a deity are actually just references to a word that refers to a specific type of sacrifice, a molk sacrifice. >> Okay. >> And one of the reasons we know this is because we have inscriptions, these are from Carthage, they're written in a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, that talk about, "Oh, this is a molk sacrifice offered to Baal, for instance." >> Okay. >> And then we have the remains of an infant. And so the word molk is just a noun. It just refers to a specific type of sacrifice. However, >> Now, are we Sorry. I know that uh several of the ancient Semitic languages, >> Mhm. >> including Hebrew, just didn't have any vowels. >> Right. >> So, it was just sort of the M sound, the L the L sound, and the K sound. >> Yes. >> Uh so when you say molk, do we know that that's how it would have been pronounced, or are we just sort of guessing at in in the same way that Molech or Moloch is just kind of best guess as to >> So, we we we know that it's probably a single syllable um noun. So, >> Okay. >> we know it was consonant-vowel-consonant-consonant. That's how um a lot of uh what in Biblical Hebrew we call segolate nouns, that's how they were vocalized anciently anciently anciently. Where did that [laughter] come >> come from? >> anciently. And and we know this because of a number of different factors, including how the words function in uh different declensions and in different relationships with other words, but also in transliteration and uh into other languages. So, for >> And so, for instance, you might find a text that is a a Semitic language, but it's written in a Greek script, where they do have to include the vowels. So, that would tell us what vowels they they were using in that time period. But, we we also know that how nouns what kind of kinds of vowels were usually used for what kinds of nouns. So, it's it's a very very educated guess. Now, when it comes to Molech or Moloch, we have to use like the Septuagint's transliteration of that as a name is one of the indicators that those were the vowels that were that were used. But, this is we we have no good data that indicate this was the name of a deity. All of the indications are that this was a noun that referred to a specific type of sacrifice. So, instead of saying this is a this is an offering to Moloch, these passages should all be read as this is a Molech offering. It is an offering as a Molech or Mulk or >> Okay, so so so that word should be should And I guess this is just a standard like a translation issue where it looks uh uh ambiguous enough that it could go it could go different ways. Is that Like for instance so so the Leviticus 18 passage that I just read 18:21 uh I I'm I'm just trying to understand like I you know, I'm not reading out of uh NIV here. I'm in I'm in NRSVue and they're still saying uh you know, offspring you shall not give your offspring uh right to sacrifice them to Moloch. >> Yes. This is this is a very very traditional reading. Like there are there are a bunch of things where scholars are like, "Yeah, that's wrong." It just hasn't filtered its way down to Bible translations. So, for instance, uh what is the the disease? uh Leprosy? >> Mhm. >> That's that's today known as Hansen's disease. >> Uh-huh. >> That's not in the Bible anywhere. The word that is commonly translated leprosy has nothing to do with Hansen's disease. But we and we know this. But we just kind of leave it because it's traditional. >> Interesting. >> Um yeah, and and and that annoys an awful lot of of folks. >> I'm noticing by the way that when I click on the the the footnote >> Mhm. >> for this thing, it says it instead of sacrifice them to Molech, it [clears throat] says the Hebrew says to pass them over to Molech. Which could mean something very different. Pass like you like what you're saying, pass could very much be you pass don't give them like pass them over to the to the uh to the act of Molech. >> Well, it's it's the idea is pass them over as a Molk offering. So so yeah, the verb there is actually cause to cross over. And the idea is you are uh like literally physically uh handing over or passing over uh like onto an altar or or something like that. But there there's only one passage that a lot of people will point to as kind of like aha, this is what actually proves it's a deity. And that's in 1 Kings 11:7 where it talks about Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab. And so abomination is is um a substitution for the god of >> Right. >> and for Molech, the abomination of the Ammonites on the mountain east of Jerusalem. So, >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, that would seem to identify Molech as the god of the Ammonites and the name of a deity. The only problem is uh we know who the god of the Ammonites was and it was not Molech. it was a god called Milcom. And if you look two verses earlier in 1 Kings 11:5, it says, "For Solomon followed Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites." So, this is just a textual corruption where the final mem on the name Milcom fell off and we're left with MLK >> Right. >> which could mean king or as we see in the the Masoretic text it is understood as a reference to the name Molech. If we go to the Septuagint, they fix the problem by saying their kings. >> Okay. >> Which um would actually indicate that it was uh Yeah, they they interpreted it as kings. And and we have there were like two or three other passages where it very clearly says Milcom is the god of the Ammonites. So, uh So, there's not a good case to make that that any deity was ever worshipped in the ancient world with child sacrifice. However, or named Milcom named Molech. >> Right. >> However, as we've talked about before on the show, there is a good case to make, in fact I think it is correct, that the god of Israel demands child sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible. >> I was thinking we might need to bring that up because [laughter] >> Yeah. >> because yeah, I there's so many you know, when you hear all of you know, people like Mike Lee talking about they're sacrificing their children and only only the most evil ever people in the in in the history of the world would would do child sacrifice. I got a bad news for you, bro. So, talk about that a little bit. >> Yeah, well, well there are a few different things to talk about including the fact that within Judaism as well as within Christianity, central events of the entire faith are child sacrifice. >> Right. >> Uh like Jesus is a child sacrifice. >> Uh he's an adult sacrifice. >> You can dress it up >> [laughter] >> offspring sacrifice. You can dress it up in in a lot of different ways rhetorically, but it is God offering their child, their son as a sacrifice. >> Right. >> And you know, that that's pretty clear. And then the Akedah, this is Abraham's offer of of Isaac. I think we've talked about this on the show before as well. Right at the last second, God goes, "Psych! Just kidding." >> Right. >> Uh and >> I just wanted to see if you do it. >> Yeah, I didn't know you were >> [laughter] >> going to do it, man. That was crazy. But we when we look at the text that we as we've discussed before, it's a little fuzzy on what exactly happened because you have uh it talks explicitly about Abraham and Isaac. They walked on. They went up the mountain. They did this. They did that. Whatever happens happens, and then it says, "So Abraham returned to his young men." Two go up the mountain, only one comes down. Uh and there are there are medieval and later Jewish traditions that actually understand the sacrifice to have taken place because Isaac vanishes from the narrative for a bit. And uh and so there's this idea that oh, he was sacrificed and he lived in heaven for a couple of years before uh he was reconstituted on Earth. Or there's there's one where the ashes the he was burnt as a burnt offering and the ashes were scattered around the grasses of Moriah and the dew mixed with the ashes and and Isaac uh you know, kind of was again reconstituted. So >> Like a phoenix rising. >> Yes, rising from from the ashes. And uh so anyway, even within Judaism, child sacrifice is kind of central to the story. >> I mean, the the Exodus starts with a a a God just sacrificing all the firstborn sons of Egypt to himself. >> And and here's where where it gets really weird. Uh then God gives the covenant code to Israel, which we see in Exodus 20 as the 10 Commandments. Exodus 21 and 22 and a little bit of 23 have the covenant code. And the end of Exodus 22 sounds an awful lot like a command to offer child sacrifice. >> Yeah. >> Uh because it says in English uh on verse 29 in English is verse 28 in Hebrew. Um you shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses, the firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep. Seven days it shall remain with its mother. On the eighth day you shall give it to me. Obviously, with the oxen and the sheep, give it to me means sacrifice it to me. >> Right. >> So it sounds like that's what is being referred to uh in terms of of the firstborn. Now, everybody immediately uh or at least people who are informed about their Bible will immediately go, "Wait a minute. Exodus 13 and Exodus 34 say you're supposed to start walking in that direction and then at the last moment you go, 'Just kidding. I'm going to pay you money and then I don't have to sacrifice my child.'" Or they'll point to Numbers where it says this is really about dedicating the child to uh priesthood service or something like that. So we have we have circumlocutions of the commandment. Now, I think the majority of scholars agree that the covenant code is the earliest legislative stuff in all the Hebrew Bible. And so these other passages are coming from later and they're having to renegotiate what's going on here because they've found this peculiar commandment that says uh I want your firstborn kids. >> Right. >> And they're like, "Oh, uh we don't like that. So what if we >> nobody was doing it. So >> Yeah, we have we have no data that indicates that there was actually the the sacrifice of children going on in Israel. This kind of thing did happen in the ancient world. Sure. The the it was more likely than not any child you successfully gave birth to to was not going to live past a year. And so the the calculus of this frequently resulted in well, maybe if we sacrifice the firstborn then God will bless us so that other children will survive. >> Yeah. >> That was that was the calculus and whether or not it worked um but we have in the in the later renegotiations they're they're um substituting things money or priest service or something like that. But notice that the foundation is still child sacrifice. >> Yeah. >> We've just shellacked and a you know a hard left right at the last second over it. We've just said just kidding don't actually sacrifice the kid which which betrays that underlying all of this is something buried deep in horry antiquity that actually said sacrifice your kids. >> Right. >> You don't need to say let's pretend to have them sacrifice their kids if that was not actually what you wanted initially. You can just >> Yeah. >> not have a commandment about sacrificing your child. >> If nobody's even talking about sacrificing children, you don't need to have any commandments about it. >> Yeah, it's it's not like somebody's like you know what? Here's what we got to do. We're going to command them to sacrifice their children and then say just kidding right at the last second. And then cuz everybody around the boardroom table would have been like why don't we just not command them to yeah. Can if if you just want the money just say yeah, you got to pay this money if you have a kid. If you just want the priesthood service, you can just say yeah, you got to give your child over to priesthood service. You don't have to say well, sacrifice them just kidding. We're going to leap in in the last second and say do it. So, uh the the rhetoric that Mike Lee is appealing to here is just transparently ignorance and uh emotive. This is This is just an attempt to try to get people to hate Democrats because they would like abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. And and one of the biggest giveaways that they don't really care about abortion as anything other than an identity marker and a wedge issue is that we know what reliably reduces the occurrence of abortion. >> Yeah. >> It's things like comprehensive sex education. It's things like greater access to women's health care. It's things like greater access to contraceptions. And guess what three things the people who rail against abortion are also railing against? Those things. >> Yes, so they don't want abortion to happen at lower rates. >> they were serious about abortion, they wouldn't be calling they would call the pill an abortion prevention pills. They wouldn't call They wouldn't be calling those >> Yeah, it >> you know, you Yeah, you shouldn't be using that. They But, they're not serious about any of these things. They're serious about having a wedge issue. >> And getting elected. >> It works great to to fire up their electorate. >> Yeah, and and unfortunately, uh the voting public is is a larger portion of the voting public than I am comfortable with is happy to be like, "Sure, I'll I'll just imagine that you're the devil incarnate because you you think abortions ought to be safe, legal, and rare, even if the guy I'm ultimately going to elect literally rapes children." >> Yeah. >> Uh it's it's baffling to me and and it is so disgusting and I am embarrassed and and ashamed that that we put into office uh such a a profoundly immoral, uh, and and profoundly corrupt person. >> Well, as corrupt morally as he may be, uh, we will have more Mike Lee in our next episode, so stay tuned for that everybody. >> If you can stomach it. >> No, no, no, it's going to be a lot of fun. We're going to have fun with it. [laughter] It's going to be you'll be able to stomach stomach it just fine. Uh, anyway, hey, if you would like to become a part of keeping this show going and keeping food in Dan's family's mouths, then, uh, you can go over to our Patreon over at patreon.com/dataoverdogma. Sign up there. There are different levels that you can sign up at, uh, where you can get access to an early and ad-free version of every episode of the show, as well as access to the after-party where we do patrons only content every week uh, for you and, uh, we and you get the the satisfaction of knowing that you're keeping us on the air and that's nice. Um, thanks so much to Roger Goudy for editing the show. Thanks to Sam for helping us out here on YouTube and we will talk to you again next time. >> Bye everybody. >> [music], Abortion Is NOT Child Sacrifice, youtube.com, 01kvqp3wq86xcrdzqzhzxtdzwm.