This paper reviews the biblical mandate to have children in tension with the claim that God holds the exclusive power to open and close wombs. What are the social and cultural implications of this theological assertion for procreative disadvantaged women in the Hebrew Bible (Sarah [Gen.16], Rebecca [Gen. 25], Rachel [Gen. 29â30], Samsonâs mother [Judges 13], and Hannah [1 Sam 1])? Focusing on childrenâs value, I will examine the implications of procreative sexual ethics for Cameroonian women with permanent infertility. The conclusion further proposes a reconceptualized and subversive motherhood model using the Naomi-Ruth narrative, constructing family beyond biology or genetics.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 1294 | 152 | 22 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 483 | 29 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 1158 | 69 | 0 |
This paper reviews the biblical mandate to have children in tension with the claim that God holds the exclusive power to open and close wombs. What are the social and cultural implications of this theological assertion for procreative disadvantaged women in the Hebrew Bible (Sarah [Gen.16], Rebecca [Gen. 25], Rachel [Gen. 29â30], Samsonâs mother [Judges 13], and Hannah [1 Sam 1])? Focusing on childrenâs value, I will examine the implications of procreative sexual ethics for Cameroonian women with permanent infertility. The conclusion further proposes a reconceptualized and subversive motherhood model using the Naomi-Ruth narrative, constructing family beyond biology or genetics.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 1294 | 152 | 22 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 483 | 29 | 0 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 1158 | 69 | 0 |