jpw wrote: Don't kill me for this -- in a truly difficult medical impasse I would not judge a family who has been through this. however, in most cases, I would think that a baby could be carried and then delivered early, thereby attempting to save both. the idea is to save life where it is possible. there are extremely difficult situations, no doubt, and in that case it would be best for the family to have a prolife doctor that would make wise decisions, and to seek the Lord's face in prayer.......not the kind of doctor that measures the length of a baby's neck through sonar at first trimester so that they can see extremes, call it down's syndrome and schedule an extermination.
Admittedly cases are rare, but there are cases still where a woman is having a miscarriage where medical intervention is necessary, the absence of which can lead to septesemia which can be fatal. A case like this was reported very recently, and sadly the woman aged just 32/33 died!!
someone wrote: I will answer one question now and leave other someones to answer if they want to. Of those women that died in the flood, all the pregnant ones died, assuming for the moment that of those women some were pregnant. I don't know for a fact that of the women that died in the flood any were pregnant. Some of those women were probably pregnant. But probably doesn't equal a fact.
Thanks for your response, BUT read Gen 6 and the opening verses which are the prelude the God's decision to destroy man especially verse 1 "... when men began to multiply...". I dont know what you understand by this, but to me the implication is clear.
There is no indication between this and the final coming of the flood that anything had changed.
So the fair conclusion is that there would certainly have been many pregnant women who died in the flood, along with children of all ages.