I don't think this is going to work. The Case for Christian Nationalism is almost entirely exegesis-free; they very deliberately state that tradition/natural law is necessary to discern a coherent political theology and quite frankly, I agree with them on that!

I don't need any gender fetishism, no. I think that looking at the world and saying "who needs the most support to flourish in the world? huh, looks like 'moms' and 'small kids' are big categories there!" is more than enough for me.

yeah, I think society should be more supportive of people the more dependent they are. if that means subsidizing drugs for prostatic hypertrophy because every old man's prostate blows up eventually so that old men are less likely to get renal failure, yeah. what that says about ontology idk.

no, what gives you the impression that either Leah or I believe that?

I mean the fundamental biological reality that women are more likely over their lifetimes to require aid from people around them in order to give birth and nurture children; society should orient itself around making this process less arduous and isolating for mothers as possible.

this (although she has written a book expanding on these themes) www.plough.com/en/topics/ju...

yeah: we're all dependent by virtue of being human, women are more so. what's wrong with that?

that's Leah's point; she starts off by saying "we're all dependent, that's part of being human"

What does the medical profession say to the false negatives, the kids who are screened but still come out with a defect?

"We would have killed you if we’d had the chance, but since you gave us the slip, here’s a onesie with the hospital logo."
www.thenewatlantis.com/publications...