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