In his First Article regarding Question 90, Aquinas asks whether law belongs to reason.

He starts out giving three counterarguments (objections). The first one talks about an Apostle who says I perceive another law in my bodily members (10). The objection goes on to say that nothing belonging to reason belongs to bodily members because reason does not use bodily organs. Thus, the objection concludes that law does not belong to reason. What is this objection saying? What do bodily organs have to do with law? Is this objection a stretch-something so absurd that it makes his reply to it seem respectable? On another note, what do you make of Aquinas method for arguing his points? Does the process (style) of writing objections followed by replies work?