|
Objection 1: It would seem that in the primitive state woman would
not have been born. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. Animal.
ii, 3) that woman is a "misbegotten male," as though she were a
product outside the purpose of nature. But in that state nothing would
have been unnatural in human generation. Therefore in that state women
would not have been born.
Objection 2: Further, every agent produces its like, unless
prevented by insufficient power or ineptness of matter: thus a small
fire cannot burn green wood. But in generation the active force is in
the male. Since, therefore, in the state of innocence man's active
force was not subject to defect, nor was there inept matter on the part
of the woman, it seems that males would always have been born.
Objection 3: Further, in the state of innocence generation is
ordered to the multiplication of the human race. But the race would
have been sufficiently multiplied by the first man and woman, from the
fact that they would have lived for ever. Therefore, in the state of
innocence, there was no need for women to be born.
On the contrary, Nature's process in generation would have been in
harmony with the manner in which it was established by God. But
established male and female in human nature, as it is written (Gn.
1,2). Therefore also in the state of innocence male and female
would have been born.
I answer that, Nothing belonging to the completeness of human nature
would have been lacking in the state of innocence. And as different
grades belong to the perfection of the universe, so also diversity of
sex belongs to the perfection of human nature. Therefore in the state
of innocence, both sexes would have been begotten.
Reply to Objection 1: Woman is said to be a "misbegotten male,"
as being a product outside the purpose of nature considered in the
individual case: but not against the purpose of universal nature, as
above explained (Question 92, Article 1, ad 2).
Reply to Objection 2: The generation of woman is not occasioned
either by a defect of the active force or by inept matter, as the
objection proposes; but sometimes by an extrinsic accidental cause;
thus the Philosopher says (De Animal. Histor. vi, 19):
"The northern wind favors the generation of males, and the southern
wind that of females": sometimes also by some impression in the soul
(of the parents), which may easily have some effect on the body (of
the child). Especially was this the case in the state of innocence,
when the body was more subject to the soul; so that by the mere will of
the parent the sex of the offspring might be diversified.
Reply to Objection 3: The offspring would have been begotten to an
animal life, as to the use of food and generation. Hence it was
fitting that all should generate, and not only the first parents.
From this it seems to follow that males and females would have been in
equal number.
|
|
