Abortion Good, Circumcision Bad: Celebrity Empty-Headedness on Grand Display

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?

A writer, physicist, former high tech executive, and desert-dwelling Cajun, Chuck Rogér invites you to sign up to receive his "Clear Thinking" blog posts by email at http://www.chuckroger.com/. Contact Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.

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?

A writer, physicist, former high tech executive, and desert-dwelling Cajun, Chuck Rogér invites you to sign up to receive his "Clear Thinking" blog posts by email at http://www.chuckroger.com/. Contact Chuck at swampcactus@chuckroger.com.

RECENT VIDEOS