Jameela Jamil

Jameela Jamil participates in “The Good Place” panel during the NBC Television Critics Association summer press tour on Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2016, in Beverly Hills, Calif. (Photo by Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

It seems like just about every time I log on to the Internet and peruse my social media feeds, I’m reading about British actress Jameela Jamil’s bizarre and atrocious defenses of abortion on demand. As a pro-lifer, I am torn between two places when I see these stories. I either want to:

1) …tune them out because I really don’t want to believe there are people who are that cold and callous when it comes to unborn children.
2) … step up and speak out against the gross inhumanity of abortion, which has been repackaged in shiny wrapping paper with a big fancy red bow to mask the cruelty that hides inside.

The second option usually wins out.

My colleagues at Twitchy have done a good job documenting the many instances where the “Good Place” actress has used her Instagram and Twitter accounts to spread the word about how awesome she thinks abortion is, so click there for a comprehensive list of her comments. Here, I’ll focus on the few that I think are among the worst and what it really tells us about abortion absolutists like Jamil.

Back in May, I wrote about how Jamil, along with other Hollywood pro-aborts like Alyssa Milano, had criticized Georgia’s fetal heartbeat bill. In defending her position, Jamil stated in so many words that unborn children were better off being aborted than having to live in foster homes:

Fast forward months later and she’s still bragging about how she “shouted” her abortion, and included a gif of her tossing her hair because feminism and Girl Power or whatever:

That she brought up “brown girls” in the context of bragging about having an abortion is especially ghoulish considering black unborn children are aborted at a staggeringly higher number than all other races.

Not to mention the fact that, in addition to the black unborn baby abortion rate, these #FEMINISM!!!! types don’t think about how millions of unborn Chinese girls were robbed of their opportunity to make a difference in their communities thanks to China’s sex-selective abortion practices (which is now supposedly illegal) where girl babies were aborted at by the millions.

These types of inconvenient facts are ignored by the Jameela Jamils and Alyssa Milanos of the world because they completely undercut their arguments about how abortion is a supposedly form of empowerment for women, especially those in minority communities.

The lives of millions – literally millions – of unborn girl babies and unborn black babies have been, are being, and will continue to be terminated in the name of “freedom” and “reproductive rights” and we’re supposed to be celebrating and “shouting” how proud we are of that, along with the fact that millions more unborn male babies have also been aborted right here in America?

I don’t think so.

Where the left have succeeded in the abortion debate is in taking the focus off of the life of the unborn child and putting it on the wants and desires of the woman instead. There’s also the argument they like to use (which Jamil demonstrated) about how unborn children are better off dead than being in the foster care system or with a parent or parents who didn’t want them.

They’ve also had a lot of success in the abortion debate by way of playing semantics games. It’s why pro-abortion feminist groups (and their MSM allies) refer to unborn children as “fetuses” instead of babies, and to an unborn child’s heartbeat as “fetal pole cardiac activity” or “embryonic pulsing“:

Referring to unborn children and their heartbeats in such clinical terms is a way of dehumanizing the child for pro-abortion activists. After all, if you can get people to believe the baby isn’t human nor alive until after it’s born, it’s much easier to advocate for the termination of the unborn baby’s life.

Some of the “feminists” who take this approach know exactly what they’re doing and what they’re advocating – right down to the baby parts being sucked out, while others make such arguments in the abstract without really considering the inhumanity of what they’re advocating.

I don’t know which camp Jamil is in, but I can tell you I used to be in the latter camp. In my liberal days, I used to justify my position on abortion by making arguments similar to Jamil’s. What if the baby is unwanted?, I would ask. Why subject it to the possibility it will be unloved?

When the truth about what I was advocating finally hit me, it was like a punch in the gut. A rude awakening in the extreme. I couldn’t believe I had ever said such things.

But the important thing is I changed my mind, thankfully, after discussing the issue over time with people who had differing views and at a time when I was also reassessing my opinions on other issues – and eventually became a conservative.

25 years later, here I am, arguing that minds on this issue can be changed, presenting myself as proof. But it takes time and a lot of hard work, as well as the ability to endure the frustrations, anger, and occasional setbacks that happen when fighting the good fight.

The Jamils and Milanos in this debate have their celebrity status with which to make their case, a case that is primarily rooted in emotion-based arguments.

Pro-life proponents have something much more powerful on their side: sound arguments which include the facts. Not only that, but our voices are getting louder every day. Keep that in mind the next time you read about another celebrity promoting abortion. We can win in this fight. It just takes time.

Sister Toldjah
Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars.
Read more by Sister Toldjah