Rising Christian nationalism: a threat to us all

[IwantToRetire]

Article by Humanist UK, so doesn't really reflect on the impact on women although does mention abortion rights.

But I do think that our politics are far more influenced by the US, not for any deep reasons, but so much of our TV is now americanised.

And some of the fundamentalist UD christian groups have very regressive attitude towards women.

https://humanists.uk/2025/09/17/rising-christian-nationalism-a-threat-to-us-all/

If anything, Aquinas ought to have opposed prostitution because in the days before reliable contraception, there were still plenty of prostitution booms esp in times of poverty. Women used methods, but also very disturbingly, infanticide was common, as Hollie mcNish wrote in this poem.

https://x.com/holliepoetry/status/1120749179247239175

St Augustine was another who argued that prostitutes were a necessary evil as they served as outlets for male lust.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=wellcomecollection.org/stories/the-bishop-s-profitable-sex-workers%23:~:text%3DSt%2520Augustine%2520(354%25E2%2580%2593430),such%2520%27cesspools%27%2520could%2520be.&ved=2ahUKEwiHtoSIk4SQAxVAnf0HHTBcI_oQzsoNegQIGBAC&usg=AOvVaw0xquYeFMxG3j7RhWrUla-a

PP mentions 'being a man' because RapidOnset did so.

And yes, it matters. This is a feminist board. I appreciate it when men can respect that.

For the reason I said? If your view on abortion is especially regressive and you're a man, I really think you should hesitate before deciding if this incredibly complex issue that affects women needs your personal opinion. Especially when it's not scientifically informed at all.

In any case, not knowing the exat time when conception occurs in a particular pregnancy is not the same as not knowing that it is at conception you have a separate human life. These are very differernt statements.

They're not really different statements when you're saying something as massive as "life begins at X" in a discussion such as abortion where we have practicalities such as term limits when we don't know when conception is and it can vary from anything we can pinpoint to within hours or days. Until it has any definable point we can actually identify, someone's personal magic beliefs about it are no value to the topic of access to abortion.

I'd add that around 15-30% of known pregnancies end in a miscarriage (spontaneous abortion), though the actual rate is higher as many miscarriages occur very early, even before a woman knows she's pregnant.
Conception is only the beginning to becoming a human being. The fertilised egg must become a viable human being. Nature quite effectively eliminates those that can't.

But this begs the question : why did God let people believe wrong info for hundreds of years about such important matters as conception & when life begins?
Why didn't He make it clear to the OT authors? He could have announced it when he gave the Commandments, for one thing.

Yes exactly, conception (whenever it occurs) can't be defined at "the start of life" as though it's definite a fertiliser egg will result in a live birth. There's so many if this if that in between. Obviously for people's own pregnancies they're welcome to view and define them as they wish, but when people start using words like life and baby as a catch all for everyone it oversimplifies the whole thing.

Quite, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect men on a feminist board (so hopefully men you have a perspective of women's rights and feminism) to be conscious of their place in discussions particularly around things like MAP and Abortion. I may be in a minority but I really don't think we need any more men adding their personal opinions to the issues that have very real-world consequences for women. It's very easy to believe in this or that when you'll never become pregnant.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me..Though shalt not kill, Though shalt remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy... etc. etc., blah, blah, blah, and by the way Moses, you might need another tablet to write this down on, because I'm going to explain exactly how babies are made..."

Many, many years later... "So, what does this bit mean? It seems to be something about eggs and fishes, but swimming around in people?"

"Uh? What? Yeah I couldn't understand it either - just throw it in the 'not canon' pile".

Also, even if life does start at conception or before conception, there is still the ethical question of whose life is more important, the baby's or the mother's?

You could say that it is up to God to make that decision, and humans should just let fate take its course, because it is always wrong to kill another human being. However, humans have often taken it upon themselves to judge that it is sometimes right to kill another human being, sometimes in the name of God.

That's perfect...who knows, maybe it did happen like that!

I'm a Christian myself but I do ZigZag a lot, generally around that sort of thing. Genesis doesn't seem to contradict the scientific account if you don't read the 'days' literally, but I don't understand why God wouldn't make reproduction & life clearer.

The OT seems to treat wars commanded by God & criminal punishment as an exception to this, I suppose.

Yep.

Are you trying to hint at human biodiversity theory?

If you are, Sowell doesn't support this. Black Rednecks And White Liberals also has great sections on previous kinds of black people (Frederick Douglass era or 1940s valued education en masses & family ties etc). Ditto comparisons to Jamaicans & Nigerian immigrants to US. He wasn't saying white people had always flourished more than black people,,he was pointing out when an unhelpful culture took hold that was aided by some white liberals, and which was NOT authentically & essentially black or African but mirrored the white underclass.

Which OT books would you say do that?

Well all the commandments which say certain crimes should get the death penalty.

And in the OT God orders the Istaelites to fight wars several times (Book of Joshua for one)

A lot of what goes on in Joshua is very morally questionable.

Judith is definitely a heroine when she dresses up in her best clothes, jewellery and perfume, gets Holofernes firstly all excited and secondly drunk, and chops his head off.

Which is pretty death-y.

I did hesitate. I understand that my perspective is neither a female nor a feminist one, but I am surprised you seem to see it as "especially regressive". My previous post was mainly to make the point that is, I think, inherent in most western abortion law, that a zygote/foetus's value is usually in practice not seen as zero (no value) or one (the same value as a live baby). It is usually seen as something in between, with very little value in the first few days after conception (however that is defined) and increased value the more developed it becomes.

That concept does not depend on a perfect understanding or definition of conception. As previously mentioned, quickening and viability may be relevant. They certainly inform the mother's emotional attachment to the developing child. I have no doubt that late miscarriages and stillbirths are typically much more distressing than early miscarriages, which I am told may not always be noticed if very early. That distress partly reflects the mother's relationship with the child she is carrying.

My thoughts on this are as a father. My DW had a far closer pre-birth relationship with our children than I did. It was at birth (or maybe just before) that they became real to me; for my DW they were very real to her much earlier. Not at conception, which as you rightly say was not possible to pinpoint, though we had a pretty good idea.

When abortion law is formulated, it is practicality that matters more than precise definition of conception. I still maintain that this has parallels in death, for example with resuscitation of people whose heart and breathing have stopped, and with life support decisions. We have developed working definitions to help with ethical dilemmas. It is not generally seen as murder to fail to attempt to resuscitate someone who is not breathing and has no detectable pulse, but hospitals have protocols to manage their responsibilities and many people observe with horror "do not resuscitate" notices imposed on a patient.

The idea that for the purposes of abortion law we need a precise date of conception renders abortion law impossible. Only access to abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason would be possible, as no limit could be imposed by law.

The idea that for the purposes of abortion law we need a precise date of conception renders abortion law impossible.

It needs to be repealed, the killing of female babies is against feminist principles.

Feminism is about women's rights, surely?

Killing babies is already illegal. No-one on this thread support killing babies.

Feminism is about women's rights, surely?

Absolutely, born and unborn.

For what it's worth that's kind of where I am. The key point being the rights of the woman remain the same so right up to birth her rights override that of the baby. So even by the very late stages her right for life should still be the priority. The whole of pregnancys a basically a liminal stage between not alive and alive human being.

I thought women were adults?

Women's rights don't extend to females under 18?

Give your head a wobble.

I did think you were going to pick me up on that, but I did google "feminism" just to check before posting. It did say women not women and girls.

I don't believe that there are any sex-based issues around abortion other than when the abortion is performed because of the sex of the foetus.

If you have a problem with all abortion then be clear. I don't believe that the fact that some aborted foetuses are female is a feminist issue, any more than it is misandry to abort a foetus which happens to be male.

Obviously sex-specific abortion is horrific.