The Birth of Sons

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The reason why children born from Jewish mothers are considered Jews because this is where they got their Jewish blood from. BTW, all of us are considered God's children regardless if one is born Jewish or not the moment we believed in Hi,.

It looks like you are contradicting yourself. First you said that "Since the sex of the fetus came from the father, it is correct that they named after the father rather than after the mother" now you give reasons it should be based on the mother.

You are just making stuff up. And none of this has anything to do with what Rose wrote anyway. We are not talking about who is considered "God's children." We are talking about the fact that the Bible puts extreme emphasis on the birth of males and ignores the birth of females almost entirely. This shows a strong male bias.

I have said before which you have ignored that this is due to respect of Adam being the elder and that Eve was made from Adam. It has nothing to do with male bias. God love both males and females equally and females are not denied the entry into the kingdom of heaven. The birth of males were highlighted more than the females because he carries the father's name. The wife usually carries the husband name such as Mrs X to indicate and remind others that she belongs to her husband Mr. X and not someone else and the children born belongs to both of them.

"The birth of males were highlighted more than the females because he carries the father's name." That's exactly correct. It is because males were considered important. That shows a strong male bias.

"She belongs to Mr. X" - just like his house and cattle. The wife was considered property. That's a male bias.

I have given the answer which you ignored. This is precisely the case which may help in preventing adultery and promiscuity. If a woman have multiple partners, she will not know who the child's father is. It will not be fair to the child born without knowing who is his real father. However, if the mother were to named him after the father's name, she and the child will be able to know who is his real father. Even if the woman were to marry and divorce multiple times and mothered children from multiple husbands, she and the children and others will know whose child belongs to who if the children was named according to their own fathers instead of the mother's name. In olden days when men usually died young due to wars, the child born to him will not be able to know who was his father unless he carries the father's name. This is fair to everybody...to the child, the father, the mother and others if the child carries the father's name instead of the mother's name; the child will know who his father is, the father will know who is his child and the mother and others will know who is the father.

The issue is not about "carrying the father's name." You have missed the point from the beginning. The issue is that the Bible only records the birth of males. This shows a strong bias in favor of the males. The women are treated as nothing of any importance.