mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (03/18/85)
In article <358@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: >In article <4049@umcp-cs.UUCP> (Charley Wingate) writes: >>Rich, you seem to think that the arguments you bring against christianity >>are new. They're not. Most of the things you've brought up were argued >>against by Aquinas, and there are lots of responses to them through the >>years. I don't suppose you've bothered reading any of them, though. >Aquinas believed that women were produced by "defective" circumstances >(Ia.92.I): if conception took place under completely "natural" circumstances >males would always result ("for the active force of the male seed intends to >produce something similar to itself, perfect in its masculinity"), but if >some peculiarity intervened - a defect in sperm or seed or the prevalence >of a moist south wind at the time of conception - females would be born. >It seems that even with God's help Aquinas fell prey to the current belief >systems of his day thinking along with Aristotle that women were inferior to >men in many practical ways. Another Aquinas quote: "Woman is naturally >of less character and dignity than man" again in (Ia.92.i). Aquinas made a lot of mistakes, no doubt about that. (He was notoriously bad-tempered, too). On the other hand, Aquinas did come out in favor of allowing abortions early in pregnancy. Anyway, the whole point of the statement was that most people with any reasonable education in their religion have heard these silly jibes many times over. They bore me. Charley Wingate