“My Life is More Important than an Unborn Fetus” and Other Pieces of Wisdom from Radical Pro-Abortion Actress Jameela Jamil

Jameela Jamil, star of NBC’s The Good Place, is an expert at putting her foot in her mouth when it comes to abortion. The actress’ radical pro-abortion comments land her in both the news and in various social media debates.

In her most recent controversy, Jamil wrote on Twitter: “To the people trolling me and @GloriaSteinem because we said there is no democracy without a woman’s right to choose…I SAID WHAT I SAID and you’re clueless if you think I’m going to take it back. My life *is* more important to me than an unborn fetus’ one. Suck on that.” 

That’s an incredibly selfish and juvenile statement to make.

On Instagram, she followed up with a photo and a caption, which has now been removed, saying, “The choice is the Landlord’s, not the tenant’s, nor the neighbour’s. Your uterus. Your choice.”

Frankly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. She’s essentially arguing that landlords across the world have the right to murder their tenants, since it’s their property. Even in the pro-abortion community, some have called her out about her incoherent comparison.

In an attempt to defend the post, she wrote on Twitter, “I understand that the concept of the Landlord is not socialist. It’s just a technical analogy, to highlight the concept and laws of ownership, which we (bizarrely) passionately apply to property/land and not to a woman’s body somehow. Even in 2019. Which is maddening. X”

Her defense is still weak and a little ridiculous. (What do socialists have to do with her argument anyways?) But her statement is the latest example of pro-abortion activists who frequently label the pro-life movement as an extension of the so-called “patriarchy.”

Gloria Steinem, an iconic pro-abortion activist, said in an interview with Al Jazeera, “Then I realized that I was writing about two most universal things: women giving birth, and patriarchal systems that try to control women and birth-giving.”

The glaring problem with Steinem and Jamil’s argument is the belief that men should care about life in the womb only under certain circumstances. After all there are plenty of pro-life women fighting on behalf of preborn babies, from Abby Johnson to Lila Rose. But in Steinem and Jamil’s view, a man can only be excited and engaged with his child to be if he or she is wanted by the mother, but if the mother doesn’t want the child and he does then he must suck it up, shut up and just agree to watch his child die without any right to advocate for their life. That just doesn’t make any sense, and, as a society, don’t we want to raise men who have a sense of responsibility for their children? 

Unfortunately, this is a growing problem in our country. Fatherlessness could be considered a national crisis. One out of three children in this country live without their biological father in the home. The cost of the so-called “patriarchy” isn’t the loss of female autonomy but the destruction of the family and marriage.

Women like Steinem and Jamil might think that they’re starting a feminist revolution, but instead they’re encouraging the epidemic of broken and fatherless homes. The idea that to break the patriarchy women must assert control over their bodies by murdering their preborn children is foolishness.

And personally, I don’t find it all that empowering.