> Nice try, Tim. But pregnancy isn't inherently risky - it may well
> be for some but clearly is not so for all.
If something is risky for some people and if we have no definitive way
of identifying all individuals at risk, then the condition is still
*inherently* risky. Similarly, many people fully recovery from
surgery, but surgery is still inherently risky.
And indeed, pregnancy *is* inherently risky: Witness the amount of
prenatal testing currently performed and the death rates for women
giving birth before the 1900's and in underdeveloped countries
today. The expansion of medical monitoring was not simply driven by
malpractice lawsuits. "Natural" does not mean "inherently safe".
Women have died and suffered grave complications as the result
of perfectly "natural" pregnancies (It is "natural" to die during
> It also confers certain protections, especially if a woman has
> her first child before the age of 30.
There is no Biblical verse that requires a woman to give birth before
age 30. If giving birth before a certain age reduces risks for
women, why isn't it a moral law? If circumcision improves one's
hygiene and reduces the incidence of certain cancers, why is it no
longer required of Christians today?
I can see no clear level of physical "risk" that triggers the specific
imposition of a moral law by God (Though I know that Attorney General
Ashcroft would find such guidelines helpful).
> Sodomy, on the other hand, is inherently damaging to the lower
> bowel (whether or not a condom is used, by the way).
A couple things:
1) Definitions: Let's be specific in our use of terms - "Sodomy" is
not "inherently damaging to the lower bowel" because it may not involve
anal insertion. Most heterosexual and lesbian couples practice "sodomy"
with absolutely no ill effects (with or without sheep). "Anal
intercourse" may be damaging and indeed, many couples (hetero- and homo-
sexual) use it sparingly and exercise some care. Even if anal intercourse
is damaging, it may not be to the extent that it requires extensive
medical treatment or involves a significant loss in the quality of life
(The latter decision is solely for the individual to decide). The
concept that the only satisfactory coupling in relationships requires
a receptive partner for an insertion event anywhere between the legs is
also a bit narrow and parochial, IMHO.
2) That a condition - pregnancy, homosexual contact, or whatever - may
not be dangerous to all is irrelevant. Also, the fact that these are
extremely dangerous to some is likewise irrelevant. My point is that
"natural law" arguments such as those based on statistical medical
probabilities have a difficult time connecting to divinely-based, moral
codes. It is clear that the Bible was not written in a way that balances
physical risks to specific proscriptions of certain behaviors or to levels
of punishment. While 'one size does not fit all in "nature"', many moral
codes permit no such distinctions.
There may be legitimate, physical reasons to enact a *manmade* law. But
don't confuse these with laws imposed by a divine agent. These two
systems may be enacted for entirely different purposes and whether the
laws overlap may often be entirely coincidental. Basically, I would not
look too hard for scientific affirmation of Biblical laws. The ambiguity
often is too great. There is *absolutely* no requirement that Biblical
laws must make sense to us.
Similarly, I feel that the ideal of a particular, optimal and guiding
concept of a "natural state" is likewise naive and generally fraught
with too many exceptions to provide anything but the sketchiest outlines
for moral codes.
If one is going to argue about a Biblically-described moral edict then
one should stick to discussing the actual text. What actually occurs
in nature is of little help in such discussions and provides little
support for arguments that are otherwise weakly or ambiguously supported
by the text.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 15 2002 - 13:49:53 EDT