Originally at American Thinker
By Chuck Rogér
There are few gaudier displays than that of an arrogant know-it-all tripping on self-righteous illogic. The tangle of amorality is a spectacle to behold.
When Russell Crowe, “known for his erratic mood swings and difficult temperament,” recently “tweeted” on the topics of male circumcision and abortion, the “critically acclaimed actor” exhibited distressingly crappy reasoning.
While on “holiday” in Italy, Crowe sent out a Twitter response to a question from a pregnant follower on the advisability of circumcision. The actor contended that babies are “perfect” and should be left that way. Crowe expanded: “Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature?”
In a subsequent tweet, Crowe responded to a follower who challenged, “I’m still waiting for @russellcrowe to give his opinion on abortion since he loves babies and all…”
The actor’s response: “Abortion should always be a woman’s choice, there is no benefit to ‘forced’ motherhood… you got it?”
Mr. Crowe has provided two lessons on how self-anointed enlightened ones think.
First, “perfect” creatures, such that babies are, should not be tampered with… unless said tampering consists of terminating the perfect creature’s life before the perfect eyes see the light of day.
Secondly, removing some of a male infant’s foreskin is barbaric. Ending the same child’s life is a “choice.”
In calling circumcision “barbaric and stupid,” alleging that people have no business “correcting” nature, and yet calling abortion a “choice,” Crowe flaunts breathtaking asininity. Incredibly, to this way of “thinking,” just as to remove foreskin is to “correct nature,” so then ending a child’s life is the “correcting” of a biological manifestation produced by mom and a male counterpart in a forgivably weak moment of passion.
Let’s summarize Crowe’s lessons.
A good mom would never decide to have her infant son’s foreskin removed, but could, in clear conscience, stop that son from living to the point at which the decision is required. Such “reasoning” probes the depths of barbarism and stupidity. So goes the wisdom of the pseudo-intellectual celebrity class.
Dear Mr. Crowe, clear thinking and sound morals are always good choices. Yet, there is no benefit to “forced” intelligence. You got it?
The issue is not Russell Crowe. The issue is not abortion. The issue is the unnecessary and barbaric disfigurement and mutilation of baby boys who cannot possibly give their consent. Stop projecting and piling on irrelevant issues. Besides, Crowe is right about one thing: babies are perfect. They require no “improvement” by stupid adults for whatever reason, religion, health, tradition, history or insanity.
I just love arrogant, reality-ignoring, pretentious, self-aggrandizing, pseudo-intellectual know-it-alls wielding pure emotion with no facts and zero logic.
Thank you for your sermon. Now would you care to offer a cogent argument?
Take care.
It’s not at all difficult to conclude that Russell Crowe is just another assh*le that got lucky. Of course it’s inconsistent for him to whine about snipping off a foreskin while advocating killing a baby in the womb, an infinitely more barbaric practice sanitized by the word “choice.” It’s just that circumcision has been in the headlines because it qualified for the San Francisco ballot in November. I consider it a serious issue on its own without layering it with abortion and some Hollywood jerk’s opinions. I just don’t want it to get lost, or considered trivial by comparison. Sorry if I annoyed you. I’ll take your criticisms to heart. Thanks.
While serving on an aircraft carrier during the Korean War the ship’s sick bay had a waiting list of men wanting to have themselves circumcised before returning Stateside. To a man, they lamented that their parents had not had this procedure done when they were babies.
I would give my left nut to get my foreskin back. My reasoning is simple–I was given two balls but only one “most erogenous area of the penis in terms of the quantity, concentration, and quality of specialized nerve receptors and stretch receptors that it is endowed with, especially on its underside and in the highly sexually-sensitive frenulum(the frenulum connects the foreskin to the back of the glans and is often also cut off during infant circumcision)”.
I’m not trying to equate prenatal infanticide (abortion) with circumcision, but since Russell-the-love-muscle-Crowe already did, I thought I’d offer my two cents.
I often wonder why female circumcision is(rightly)referred to as “genital mutilation”, while male circumcision is mostly referred to as “a simple and healthy medical procedure”.
OK.
Very well then.
CR