Another item for the “I am not making this up” category

Via Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man, we have another person to add to the original post below (plus the pro-legalized abortion San Francisco folks wanting to ban circumcision).  These folks think it should it be against the law to cut away a tiny bit of flesh but completely legal to destroy the same human being.  Moral schizophrenia: They’re doin’ it right.

But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?

The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.

Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?

The “forced motherhood” line is an emotive canard used reflexively by pro-legalized abortionists.  They ignore the obvious fact that the woman is already “with child” — unless he thinks the government forced her to get pregnant.

I’ll bet that these people are pro-legalized partial-birth abortion, where they think it should be legal to stick a fork in the baby’s head when he is 90% delivered and suck his brains out, but would oppose the right to perform a circumcision at the same point and let him live.

Again, how can someone talk about and defend  the perfection of babies and then advocate abortion?  What a bizarre world.  Read more below about a guy who was really mad at his parents for having him circumcised as an infant but thought they should have had the right to kill him in the womb.

—-

Original post

A commenter on at a post titled Why Pro-Choice is Losing held the following two views:

  • Strongly pro-legalized abortion
  • Strongly anti-circumcision

Here’s his comment (#54 at the link):

What do the anti-choice people in this thread propose to do to women who choose to have an abortion in the event it is made illegal? How do they propose to determine what pregnancies were purposely aborted and which ones were not? Will they put a gun to a woman’s head, force feed her, turn her into a human incubator, and force her to give birth to a child against her will? What would that do to a child who discovered he/she was brought into the world in such a fashion?

On a further note, I am circumcised and I wish that I wasn’t. In fact I feel extremely bitter against my parents every time I think about the fact that they chopped off a piece of my body against my will.

Think about that for a minute.  He wanted his mother to be able to have his whole body destroyed in the womb, but he is “extremely bitter” that a small piece was cut off outside the womb.

The circumcision, probably done within a week of his birth, was “against his will.”  But what about his will the week before when he was in his mother’s womb?

I wonder if he would have minded an in utero circumcision, since everything there is fair game?  The end state would have been the same for him, of course.

I hope his inconsistency makes him realize that regardless of how he feels about circumcision, abortion is a far worse thing to do to a human being.  If he had been aborted he wouldn’t be here to be “extremely bitter” about his circumcision.

59 thoughts on “Another item for the “I am not making this up” category”

  1. The hypocrisy is staggering, isn’t it?

    I once knew a woman who had had an abortion who lectured me on smoking while pregnant every chance she got. She even told my HUSBAND not to let me smoke! It took every once of self-control I had (which wasn’t much, given that I was a smoker) not to tell her to bite me.

    Like

  2. Like many viewing life through the lens of entitlement, he only sees what others have and he does not and is bitter. He never sees what he has and others do not. Too bad because that is the only way to stop being bitter.

    The message of entitlement is also the message of coveting what others have.

    Like

  3. Circumcision has proven health benefits. If he’s really that bitter about it, let him bring an assault charge against his parents. But he won’t, because he knows that, even if they acted out of ignorance, they still did it because they believed it would be in his best interests. Abortion doesn’t fall into the same category. That’s the parent acting in their best interest.

    Like

  4. Children before they are born deserve to be protected from being killed by abortion. Children after they are born deserve to be protected from genital mutilation (i.e. male or female circumcision). That is the consistent position to take.

    Like

    1. Not really. While the Bible does not require circumcision any longer, it is not mutilation. It was the act of setting a part the people of God by taking a sign that He had given. Therefore, it is not mutilation. The only time it is referred to as mutilation is when Paul was confronting those who were requiring the rite in order to become a Christian. Then he said that he wished they would mutilate themselves because they were warping the gospel. However, he still had Timothy circumcised in order to fit in with the Jews.

      There is freedom for parents to choose on this issue, but it is NOT mutilation unless it is required as a standard of righteousness.

      Like

  5. You may be interested in having a look at this post by PZ Myers and the subsequent thread, now running at over 600 comments. Myers is a developmental biologist, and outspoken atheist.

    A couple of interesting points:

    Myers:

    The fertilized oocyte is a human cell, but it is not a human being.

    And then:

    ……notice how clever I was in not saying precisely when the fetus becomes a human being? That’s because there is no sharp magical border, it’s grey and fuzzy all the way.

    Now what he is doing is working from the embryo upwards, and saying we can’t say when it becomes human. But we know it becomes human somewhere, right, otherwise none of us would be humans? I’ve always looked at this the other way around. Starting with the human and working back in time, at what point can we say, no, this isn’t a human anymore?

    I only saw Myers’ post a little while ago, and haven’t commented because the thread is already so long. One further interesting point to note is that his own daughter has a different viewpoint.

    Like

    1. Myers’ statement brings Pres. Reagan’s quote to mind:

      “If there’s even a question about when human life begins, isn’t it our duty to err on the side of life?”

      Like

    2. Good catch, Michael. Myers out-clevers himself on a couple points.

      1. A fetus doesn’t become a human being, he/she is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo, human fetus, human toddler, etc.

      2. He tips his hand at his desire to rationalize abortion. He has no desire to objectively consider the facts.

      And this guy is a biologist??!! He should read some embryology texts regarding the scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings.

      He also said:

      Also, some people are ‘uneasy’ about the whole abortion thing. Fine; don’t get one.

      That’s kindergarten level pro-abortion talk. If you don’t like slavery, don’t have one, etc.

      Like

      1. I think you need to grant the man a little bit more respect, given that this subject is his area of study. He is giving you the science. A child becomes a human being in the womb, and the point in time that it happens is as fuzzy as the time when a teenager reaches puberty. The best we can do is err on the side of caution, and ensure that abortions do not take place at a stage where there is doubt. Saying that a human exists at conception is very extreme. I prefer using the existence of a functional nervous system, which can transmit signals from one part of the body to another as a milestone in determining whether or not an abortion is allowable. This places the milestone long before a foetus has any chance of neurological activity.

        I assure you that embryology books are more likely to have sections written by PZ Myers, than they are to disagree with him. Just because you have picked out a portion of the books that use the term “human” to refer to an embryo, or oocyte, does not mean that the scientific community identifies this entity as a human being.

        The quote you link to (from the textbook) says:

        A zygote is the beginning of a new human being

        Big deal, a concrete pillar is the beginning of a new bridge, But it’s not a bridge until the two sides meet up.

        There are too many people accusing people like me of trying to rationalize abortion, often even accusing us of wanting to promote abortions. I’m not trying to rationalize abortions, and I very much doubt that my wife and i would ever consider having one. Please stop making us sound like we want abortions to happen, and understand that it is important for us to discuss valid guidelines for things, even if we don’t want those things to take place.

        Like

      2. Ryan,

        He is not an embryologist. This isn’t that complicated.

        And he, and you, and all the other pro-aborts do nothing about erring on the side of caution. Those are just deadly weasel words to soothe your consciences and give a false sense of humanity. I have more respect for the pro-aborts quoted at that link who concede that they are killing innocent human beings.

        “I prefer using the existence of a functional nervous system”

        Yeah, and I prefer that you not permit human beings to be crushed and dismembered.

        Go ahead and find your embryology texts that disagree with what I wrote. It is really simple science and really simple logic.

        You and Myers remind me of what J. Budziszewski says, “Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that you must be highly intelligent and educated to commit.”

        Myers’ is at least consistent. Everything I’ve read from him on any topic is equally fallacious.

        Like

      3. If you want to talk consistency, take your embryology books and turn to the evolution chapter. You don’t agree with that part do you?

        The book is either a reliable source or it isn’t.

        I’ve given a scientifically sound reason to limit abortion to a specific period. Application of my views into law would prevent a great deal of abortions. The only argument you have is that God creates a human being at conception. That’s a religious view, not a scientific one.

        Like

      4. FAIL. You brought religion up, not me.

        You didn’t give a scientifically sound reason for when you can kill innocent human beings. You made up an arbitrary and fuzzy line based on your prejudices and you do zero to enforce it. Just more pahetic pro-abortion rationalizations.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      5. Actually I admitted there was a fuzzy line. That was my point. When there is a fuzzy line (remember my puberty analogy?) you need to err on the side of caution. I explained how to err on the side of caution using scientific reasoning.

        Like

      6. No, you erred on your side of your made-up definition of when you think human beings have a right to life. You are confusing the use of science to determine when certain activities begin with the moral issues of whether those stages are relevant to deciding whether the humans can be destroyed. Truly erring on the side of life would mean no abortions.

        Like

      7. No, Ryan. You’ve given a scientifically subjective reason for abortion at a subjective point in the development of another person. Application of your views into law wouldn’t prevent any abortions, but only redefine what abortion is for the poor souls deemed non-persons by people like you.

        It’s really quite simple: When a man and woman have intercourse, they are engaging in the act designed by God (or nature for you heathens) for the purpose of producing another person. The product of that act cannot be anything BUT another person. It’s the only way another person can be had. Every person now living went through the same developmental process. From the moment of conception, we’re dealing with another person. Rationalizations, cheap or “scientific”, do not change that very basic fact.

        Like

      8. No, my reasons were most definitely objective. Your disagreement does not make them subjective. It’s based on evidence.

        Thanks for the sum up of the whole “intercourse” stuff. I was dreading that talk with my Dad.

        Like

      9. It’s subjective because it’s where Ryan draws the line. The pro-life argument states that a human life is always a human life – where exactly does God factor into that?

        Like

      10. How is my drawing of the line at the creation of the nervous system any different than you drawing the line at the joining of the egg and sperm?

        I believe that the essence of life is in the brain. Our thoughts, and self awareness are what makes us human. Before those things happen, the entity belongs entirely to the mother’s body, and if the mother chooses not to let that part of her body develop into a child, who is to say anyone but her suffered a loss?

        Like

      11. You answer your own question when you argue that you believe the “essence of life is in the brain.” Those without thoughts, by your reasoning, are not human. THis is patently absurd. We don’t believe that life’s essence belongs anywhere – rather, life continues from mother-child.

        Therefore your line is a line you draw at a certain point. We draw no line – it is a continuum.

        Further, there are living things without brains. Therefore on another level, your idea about life being held in the brain is not congruent with the natural world.

        Like

      12. How is my drawing of the line at the creation of the nervous system any different than you drawing the line at the joining of the egg and sperm?

        A. Joining of egg & sperm = new human being (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq)

        B. Creation of nervous system = event at a stage of development of human being

        A is vastly different than B. Your selection of B as the point of when you can kill innocent human beings is not scientific at all. It is an arbitrary point you picked out and you use (bad) philosophical arguments to support it.

        Our thoughts, and self awareness are what makes us human.

        You are equivocating on a scientific definition of human being versus your philosophical definition.

        Before those things happen, the entity belongs entirely to the mother’s body

        Using your logic, the entity — which is a human being — would “belong” to the mother’s body through the entire pregnancy.

        if the mother chooses not to let that part of her body develop into a child

        That’s a rather pathetic euphemism for this — http://tinyurl.com/yzjq4lv

        who is to say anyone but her suffered a loss?

        Anyone who sees that an abortion kills a human being can say that the human being suffered a loss. Using your logic, as long as we kill you in your sleep you don’t “know” it, so no loss is suffered. One of your reasoning errors is making the worth of the unborn extrinsic. Human beings at all stages of life have intrinsic worth and deserve protection.

        Like

      13. So there’s no sliding scale at all with you guys? A single cell created by the joining of an egg and a sperm is a human being to you?

        I assume this means you would charge all the doctors and lab technicians in in-vitro clinics with serial murder, since they toss a few hundred of those things out every single day.

        And yes Adam, without a brain, it’s not a human being. Life exists without brains, of course, but in the animal kingdom, we equate brain activity as the definition of life.

        And Neil, thanks again for posting pictures of dead babies, some of whom were aborted at an age older than that of my son at birth. I’ve stated before that I don’t support abortion at these stages.

        Like

      14. So there’s no sliding scale at all with you guys? A single cell created by the joining of an egg and a sperm is a human being to you?

        Yes. I’m too pro-science to be pro-legalized abortion. Human beings have intrinsic worth, not worth handed to it by people like you (who have all sorts of different views on when you must stop chopping up human beings).

        I assume this means you would charge all the doctors and lab technicians in in-vitro clinics with serial murder, since they toss a few hundred of those things out every single day.

        In-vitro brings up serious ethical issues that many people don’t consider before using it. I advise against in-vitro for many reasons.

        And Neil, thanks again for posting pictures of dead babies, some of whom were aborted at an age older than that of my son at birth. I’ve stated before that I don’t support abortion at these stages.

        “Some” were aborted later. Hmmm. But some other pro-aborts just have a different definition of personhood than you, so who are you to complain? Maybe you should be at their blogs explaining why your arbitrary and discriminatory and un-testable “line” is the right one.

        Like

      15. Without a brain, it is still a human being. You are not disputing that – it is a Homo sapiens. What you are disputing is it’s personhood, which is quite different from its species classification. In all my discussions about abortion, I use the terms human being and Homo sapiens interchangeably. They mean the same thing.
        Brain activity is not, in fact, the definition of life in the animal kingdom. First off, brain activity is fairly useless in chimpanzees that lack a heart. Or lungs.

        The lack of brain activity is only a problem when you expect to find it and don’t. A healthy, adult male should have brain activity. A Homo sapiens at 3 weeks old is not expected to have any brain activity. Yet you don’t see every doctor advising women on the planet aborting their 3 week old babies because they don’t meet your horribly inadequate definition of life…because brain activity is not expected to be there at that stage.

        Further, lets assume you are right (which is a massive leap into absurdity) and conclude that pre-brain activity, the Homo sapiens in a woman’s uterus is not alive. Why abort it? I won’t claim it is dead, as the definition of dead implies a previous state of life, but can life magically sprout from non-life? This is the position you are holding. It is not alive….then it is alive. Bam. Non-life======life.

        I don’t need to explain how ludicrous and absurd this is.

        Like

      16. Adam, your arguments are purely about language. human, homo sapiens, baby, dude, child… Call it what you want, but the operative word is “being”. Without a brain, there is nothing that has achieved a state worthy of protection as a member of society.

        It’s boring arguing with someone who only looks for evidence that supports what he already believes.

        Like

      17. “Without a brain, there is nothing that has achieved a state worthy of protection as a member of society.”

        That isn’t a scientific argument, it is a (bad) philosophical one. If you weren’t in such a hurry to destroy this human being she would have your arbitrary criteria for life soon enough.

        Like

      18. “Big deal, a concrete pillar is the beginning of a new bridge, But it’s not a bridge until the two sides meet up.”

        But it’s illegal to blow up either one.

        Like

      19. Excellent point!

        Besides, the “meeting” part of his illustration implies birth control, not abortion. They try to get very creative to rationalize abortion.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

  6. This is a response to Ryan, above.

    It does help to define the terms of what is being discussed. I’m talking about a creature with a unique code of human DNA. That tells me that it is in fact one of our species, and as such, there are certain rights that come along with that membership, one of them being a right to life. Your argument is about denying the scientific fact that a human zygote is human at all. You have not offered evidence for your view, you have offered your ‘sliding scale’ of humanity. It’s a philosophical argument for you. We are factually correct – abortion destroys a human.

    Like

    1. Of course a human zygote is human. So are my toenail clippings. The debate is whether or not it is a complete human being.

      Try to get rid of preconceptions for a minute. Do you believe that very nanosecond two strands of DNA meet up and create a new genetic code, a new human is formed? One with the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us?

      If you hold these beliefs, you certainly must be very much against most reproductive technology as well as the birth control pill. which results in millions of these “deaths” every day.

      Like

      1. I believe that toe-nail clippings are toe-nail clipplings and are not an individual human at any stage of development. I think you agree with me. They are not the same as a single/multicellular human.

        To answer your question, yes, the very nanosecond that unique DNA is formed you have an individual human being. I’m sorry that you think that certain individuals shouldn’t be afforded the same rights as everyone else.

        And correct – I am very much against IVF and certain types of birth control – those that destroy humans.

        Like

      2. Ah, the toenail clippings argument. Spoken like a true pro-abort. Zygotes are complete human beings for that stage of development. Using the completeness argument Ryan could justify abortion until adulthood.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      3. “So are my toenail clippings. “ Um, no it’s not.

        An embryo is qualitatively different from a sperm, from an egg, and from a toenail clipping, they are different types of cells. An embryo is the foundation of a human (I believe it is a human, but for now let’s say at the very least it is the foundation). One way to look at it is inevitability. A toenail clipping does not grow up to make a human. An embryo does. A sperm, left to itself, will not grow up to be a human, or an egg. An embryo does. Granted, it needs another life to sustain it, but no amount of energy will create a human from a toenail clipping. A toenail clipping has never grown up to be a little boy or girl, embryos typically do unless someone stops it.

        “If you hold these beliefs, you certainly must be very much against most reproductive technology as well as the birth control pill. which results in millions of these “deaths” every day.” Most Protestant pro-lifers do not hold this view, and I believe they can do so consistently for reasons mentioned above.

        Like

      4. Let me rephrase the last paragraph… I’m okay with any birth control technology that comes before fertilization. I don’t know a lot about reproductive technology, some of it seems questionable. I don’t have any moral problems with the pill, but I believe it can really mess with a woman’s system.

        Like

      5. I only use the toe-nail clipping example when someone tells me a zygote is “human” and has human DNA. That is not what makes something a person. I’m quite familiar with the differences between the two. Yes, a zygote is the foundation of a human being, and when all goes well, it eventually turns into one. But without a brain or nervous system, it cannot be self aware, or feel anything. That is what differentials it from a human being.

        A zygote or embryo does not inevitably grow up to become a baby. A lot of things need to go right for this to happen. Neither can be “left to itself”.

        Just so you know, the pill prevents implantation of the fertilized egg when the fertilization itself takes place. The controversial “morning after pill” is actually just a large dose of the normal birth control pill. According to my opponents on this issue here, women on the birth control pill murder babies all the time.

        Most Christians I know are fine with this reproductive technology. I’m just pointing out that most of us do not consider a zygote to have all the rights and freedoms as a human.

        Like

      6. A zygote or embryo does not inevitably grow up to become a baby

        1. Her odds go up greatly if you don’t crush and dismember her with sharp instruments.
        2. Toddlers don’t inevitably grow up to become old people, but that doesn’t make them fair game for destruction.

        Yes, a zygote is the foundation of a human being

        Wrong. A zygote is a human being.

        But without a brain or nervous system, it cannot be self aware, or feel anything. That is what differentials it from a human being.

        That is your opinion, which is in disagreement with every mainstream embryology textbook I’ve come across. You are using philosophical arguments to justify the destruction of human beings.

        Like

      7. “I only use the toe-nail clipping example when someone tells me a zygote is “human” and has human DNA. That is not what makes something a person. I’m quite familiar with the differences between the two.”

        Okay, well, save us both some time and please quit comparing abortion to clipping toenails.

        Like

      8. Then save me some time and stop comparing zygotes with toddlers. To equate the two is to understand neither.

        Like

      9. Don’t be so ridiculous. We are comparing human beings at particular stages of development. Using your logic we couldn’t compare killing toddlers wih killing teens because they are so obviously different.

        Sent from my iPhone

        Like

      10. No we are not, we are comparing entities with brains and entities without brains. If you don’t think it’s “scientific” to discern between those two stages of development, and if you don’t think there’s a difference, morally, between slaughtering a ten year old child, and destroying a small group of cells that may become one, then don’t try to tell me your arguments are based on science.

        What’s sad, in my opinion, is that if we worked together, we could probably get the laws changed to prevent late term abortion. I’d be on board with that for sure.

        Like

      11. No we are not, we are comparing entities with brains and entities without brains.

        You are comparing two human beings at particular stages of development — human beings with inherent worth, not worth assigned by outsiders.

        What’s sad, in my opinion, is that if we worked together, we could probably get the laws changed to prevent late term abortion. I’d be on board with that for sure.

        No, what is sad is arguments like that. Let’s recap.

        You argue strenuously for the legalized abortion of human beings that don’t meet your philosophical criteria. That doesn’t put you close to us, it puts you on the side of all the other pro-aborts making the personhood argument

        Like

      12. It’s not my criteria, and it’s not philosophical. My argument is based on which organisms have reached the stage where the capability of self awareness, and/or consciousness is possible. These are scientifically defined stages which are used in determining if an advanced organism is alive.

        You are the one talking about “worth”, which is a philosophical argument. Worth is dependant on an outside entity.

        I brought up our common ground because I find it helpful to point out common ground in an argument.

        Like

      13. “It’s not my criteria, and it’s not philosophical. My argument is based on which organisms have reached the stage where the capability of self awareness, and/or consciousness is possible.”

        Bzzzt. You use a vague scientific timeline to draw a philosophical conclusion. Using your logic, I could offer the definition of childbirth, or when someone becomes a teen, then propose killing either and claim I was basing it on “science.”

        Of course we are both using the philosophical argument that you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings. But I’m using the scientific argument of when human life begins and you are using a made-up version. I’m applying a moral principle to scientific fact. You are applying a moral principle to an anti-science opinion.

        Like

      14. There are worse criteria around than a nervous system/consciousness I suppose (i.e. having your whole body outside the mother), but ultimately I think it is insufficient. I think the determination should be whether or not something is human. For instance, most of us, rightfully so, see the death of a human as a far worse thing than the death of an animal.

        Is a fetus human? Well, if it is not, what is it? When two humans get together and create something, they don’t make an ostrich.

        As far as something being “alive”, well, I don’t completely agree. Let’s say that your grandpa appears to be brain dead. But let’s say that there is a very real chance, maybe 95%, that he will wake up from that within 3 months. Maybe that’s not a realistic situation, I don’t know. But the point is, you wouldn’t want to pull the plug, and morally, that would be murder.

        I’m glad that you at least want to stop abortions based on development of the nervous system, but ultimately, I think it is insufficient. I think humanity should be the deciding factor.

        Like

  7. Any chance of telling these people that abortions are performed via circumcision and then brain suctioning?

    Obviously, that the unborn baby girl or boy loses 100% of sexual function after an abortion is lost on these twits.

    Like

  8. Liberals are never consistent in their thinking. Which is why they can never live their philosophy. I must have missed this the first time, but I’ve read all about Crowe lately and can’t stand him.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s