Jameela Jamil, an actress on the hit show “The Good Place,” has spent much of the last week or two flaunting her abortion on social media. It began when she raged at pro-lifers who were allegedly “trolling” her, and said that her life “is more important to me than an unborn fetus.” She emphasized her point by telling pro-lifers to “suck on that.”
Next, and right on cue, she pulled out the familiar “pro-lifers are pro-birth” chestnut: “You people are Pro birth. Not pro life. There are plenty of starving, homeless babies currently. Over 100k currently seeking foster care. You care about fetuses, Once they’re out the womb, you don’t give a fuck. Help the kids who are alive first, then call yourself ‘pro-life.'”
Not satisfied that she’d gotten the point across, she then declared that her abortion was a wonderful decision because it enabled her to be rich and happy: “Receiving THOUSANDS of messages about how I made a mistake having an abortion 7 years ago and how I must be a miserable person… I am in fact a happy, thriving multi millionaire, madly in love, with free time, good sleep and a wonderful career and life. But thanks for checking.”
When asked if babies who are viable outside of the womb should be aborted, Jamil confirmed that she supports abortion in all cases, at any stage, and for any reason. She used an interesting analogy to make her point. “The choice is the landlord’s, not the tenant, nor the neighbour’s,” the actress tweeted. In fact, she was so proud of that argument that she quoted herself on her Instagram page.
What’s fascinating about all of this is that Jamil not only uses the three dumbest pro-abortion arguments imaginable, but she delivers them in succession with each argument getting appreciably dumber as she goes. Let’s go through these one at a time.
1) Pro-lifers are pro-birth.
We can’t blame Jamil for this one. It’s probably the most common pro-abortion talking point, though it has never succeeded in persuading anyone who wasn’t already persuaded. The first problem with the argument, if you can call it that, is that there isn’t anything obviously wrong with being pro-birth. Yes, I am very much in favor of babies being born after they are conceived. The only alternative to this arrangement involves death by natural causes or death by murder. So, pro-birth? Of course.
But the assertion that pro-lifers stop caring about babies after they’re born is utterly baseless, which is why pro-abortion people never produce any figures or facts to support their point. There is no evidence that pro-lifers are less likely to adopt children, feed the hungry, or help the poor. In fact the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
Besides, none of this is remotely relevant to the issue of abortion itself. Even if pro-lifers are a bunch of heartless Scrooges, so what? That doesn’t make abortion any less violent or evil. If abortion destroys innocent life — which it does — that destruction doesn’t become less significant or less of a problem just because the people opposing it are callous hypocrites. We’re not callous hypocrites, for the record. But even if we were, it wouldn’t have any bearing on the issue at all.
2) Killing your baby makes you happy.
This is like a morbidly obese pop star wearing a butt-less dress and a thong to advertise her “self-confidence.” You don’t dress like that if you’re confident. You dress like that if you’re a pathetic loser begging for acceptance and attention. Similarly, you don’t go around announcing your happiness and contentment to the world if you’re actually happy. And we know that Jamil isn’t happy because money and luxury cannot shield a person from the guilt and emptiness they will inevitably feel after killing their own child. This is a basic fact of human nature. Money is nice to have but it won’t heal those kinds of wounds.
3) Women are landlords and their babies are tenants.
This argument is astonishing in its stupidity. Leaving aside the dull inhumanity of comparing the mother-baby relationship to that of a landlord and a tenant, the bigger problem is that Jamil has completely undercut her own position. Indeed, tenants have all kinds of rights and protections under the law. Your landlord cannot, in fact, evict you for any reason or any time he sees fit. And he certainly can’t walk into your kitchen and shoot you in the head.
I’m certain Jamil doesn’t actually think that a landlord should be able to kill his tenant, and I’m fairly certain that she doesn’t think he has absolute authority to evict his tenants. There are laws on the books, for example, preventing a landlord from kicking a tenant out for his sexual orientation. Any guesses about whether a left wing Hollywood actress supports those protections or not?
Here is the point. The fact that the tenant is living on the landlord’s property does not actually grant him the power to kick the tenant to the curb at any point and for any reason. The tenant, by law, could be permitted to stay on the landlord’s property against the landlord’s will, depending on the situation. I highly doubt that Jamil thinks the landlord’s desires should always, in every situation, be the deciding factor.
Now let’s bring this analogy home. Except in cases of rape (which is to say, except in a small fraction of cases), the “tenant” in the womb was put there by an intentional act on the part of the mother. The mother maybe did not intend for that act to result in creating a tenant, but she did it knowing that the act has that very real potential. Now the tenant resides in the landlord’s apartment because the landlord put him there. He will be there only temporarily and the only way to evict him, at least for the first few months, is to kill him. Shouldn’t the tenant in the womb be granted at least as much protection as a tenant in a studio apartment? Shouldn’t he at least be granted some protection? If a landlord’s property rights are not absolute with respect to his tenants, why should the woman’s “bodily autonomy” be absolute with respect to the baby she conceived?
I’m just using Jamil’s own logic here. And it seems to destroy her case, not help it.