Re: What is "natural" anyway?

From: Tim Ikeda (
Date: Wed May 15 2002 - 23:16:54 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: What is "natural" anyway?"

    Kamilla writes:
    > The equation of pregnancy with the practice of sodomy is grossly
    > offensive. It is a fallacious argument which I will not glorify
    > with any further response.

    I'm sorry you are offended, Kamilla. For me, this is not an
    emotionally charged topic and I remain somewhat detached. But YMMV.

    Quick reminder and a few clarifications:
    The complications of pregnancy and the relative benefits of Biblically
    mandated circumcision were introduced primarily for contrast in the
    discussion of "natural law" and medical arguments relating to
    prohibitions against anal intercourse. Pregnancy was *never* equated
    with anal sex. Beyond the first couple paragraphs of my past two posts
    were longer discussions about the problems of linking Biblically-mandated
    moral edicts with concepts about what is "natural". I think this remains
    an interesting problem that seems to have been glossed over in this
    thread. Despite early claims, I do not feel that this linkage has been
    firmly established. I'm still not even sure what people mean when they
    say that something is "natural". There appears to be some unspecified
    mixing of an idyllic notion of how things should be, statistical
    averaging, and epidemiology. Perhaps what is driving this form of
    "special pleading" is the notion that divine commandments should
    necessarily make sense to us.

    Tim Ikeda

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 15 2002 - 23:23:36 EDT