Jemmali Offers Up Abortion Opinions
A few months back the Emerald ran a letter to the editor from faculty member Mohammed Jemmali. His letter was about the Anti-Israel protest that occurred at the EMU(and its counterprotest).
At the time Editor-in-Chief CJ Ciaramella and our Publisher Guy wrote these two responses to his Free Speech letter. Jemmali responded in the comments section to the posts.
It got a little out of hand, essays were written, names were called, Vincent battled it out with Jemmali. It was pretty boring actually.
But Jemmali’s back and this time he’s tackling an even better issue: ABORTIONS! Yeah. Lets see what he had to say with some of his endearing quotes:
Like Obama and millions of Christians, one can be pro-life at home and pro-choice outside his or her family.
If you’re not pro-choice, then you likely don’t believe in the separation of state and church (or the Constitution), and you like to impose your beliefs on others with disregard to the difficult experiences (such as rape) and emotional pain that some women and families go through when considering an abortion.
I love the contradiction in terms here. Isn’t that awesome. Obama is great because he’s pro-life at home but not in society. At the same time though, Jemmali is saying that Obama likes putting women through emotional pain and that he likes to impose his beliefs on others, that masochistic bastard. How dare he!
When confronted with a dilemma, I like to refer to logic and science for an answer.
Ha!
George W. Bush is one of those pro-lifers. Yet, no U.S. governor has ordered more death sentences (he’s also the only one who never granted a single pardon), and no U.S. president has waged more wars (he waged two). I consider the Americans who voted for him based on his religious beliefs to be the biggest hypocrites of American society.
Wait…
So, Obama’s cool even though he’s pro-life? But Bush isn’t cool because he is pro-life? What?
I’m glad that you could compare getting an abortion to pardoning people from getting the needle and starting wars.
It’s wonderful that this paragraph gets a jab in at Bush and calls Americans hypocrites for voting for someone they agree with. What happened to that whole abortion issue?
Oh wait, here it is:
In his speeches, Obama always tries to bring people together by finding common ground. Many people criticize him for his speaking abilities and positive messages. Are they suggesting that Bush, a very divisive and mediocre speaker, is better? Bush spoke at a Notre Dame commencement ceremony, but didn’t get nearly as criticized as Obama. Yet, in front of a tough crowd, Obama was able to get a few standing ovations during his speech, including in response to abortion, calling for measures to reduce unintended pregnancies as a common ground, and citing solutions such as “making adoption more available, providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term … and (making) sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
I swear it’s in there, it’s the fourth sentence in, you know, after the Obama is better because people clapped for him at Notre Dame part. This reminds of something…oh wait, I remember now. It’s Diego Hernandez.
This letter is almost exactly like the MLK Day editorial that Hernandez sent in this year. Start off with a salient point, then you confuse readers by spinning off in completely random directions for the rest of the article and then in the last paragraph provide a semi-solution that doesn’t really work.
Oh Jemmali, you sly dog. You almost had me there. I thought you were your own voice but I now realize that you’ve just been training with Hernandez this whole time. I’m a little disappointed, I was hoping that you’d bring a new brand of crazy to the good ol’ UO but you’re just more of the same.
Yea, now THERE’s a case of evil academia that has done educated you stupid …. now go off and resort to cannibalism.
Oh. Snap.
Jemmali – have you read Timecube? Sounds like your kind of thing.
To those who didn’t get it, I was using sarcasm in my blog above.
Did you read “sbunny8” ‘s comment on my article on the Emerald’s website?
If you’re wondering what issue I’m gonna tackle next, how about torture!
I made a bumper-sticker (seriously) that says “We don’t torture; we freedom-tickle”. I took it from Jon Stewart. I would sell it you for a $1, but you probably disagree w/everything I believe in…
Happy Memorial Day!
your humble Arab entertainer
If you are at all interested in bioethics, transhumanism, or human augmentation I would be glad to loan you my copy. It is really a remarkable piece of work.
I’m not pro-abortion, just anti-fetus.
Well, I’m pretty sure it didn’t end up as beer money. Beyond that, I can’t say.
I am a pro-lifer and Obumma is a stem cell extremist. Pro choicers should get sent to China to volunteer at forced abortion clinics. Then they should visit some Frankenstien like man made biological mess ups at a underground US government stem cell lab. Can you order a designer baby over the internet yet ? I want one just like Obumma. Did you guys ever read the copy of the book Radical Evolution I dropped off for you at the office. (or did Sudsy just sell it to Smith Family for beer money?)
I can’t quite tell what Bob’s stance is on abortion. It’s pretty vague.
Souls – not just for breakfast anymore.
To be fair, Mohamed, I didn’t use that “laim [sic] ‘douche’ insult” to hurt your feelings. I used it because you are, in fact, a douche.
I’d be cool with people aborting their own children until about 3ish. Maybe a bit longer, I don’t have a firm opinion on the specific age (12 years old?).
What business is it of mine? It isn’t my immortal soul they are damning to eternal damnation by killing their own spawn.
They’ll be wishing they had that kid though, when they are burning in hell and SATAN is poking their asses with his pitchfork.
Ian:
YES.
Wait… did we just get an Objectivist? Remember kids, Objectivism is mind poison.
‘”crushing the skull of a near full term baby (not fetus) and vacuuming it out, ”
sounds like Cannibal Corpse lyrics.
I’m not sure that, two days ago, I could’ve believed that Jemmali could come across as even more disproportionately defensive than before.
But today is a new day. A new day indeed.
When in doubt check your premises. A is A. You can’t be Pro-Life and Pro-Death at the same time. You either justify murder or you don’t. If you are for late term abortions, crushing the skull of a near full term baby (not fetus) and vacuuming it out, or refusing medical help to an aborted baby that refuses to die on cue as in the Obama case, then you are Pro-Death.
If you are against late term abortions but OK with earlier ones then you are simply in denial that the life you take is human and is guaranteed equal protection under the said Constitution.
If you draw the line at viability to sustain itself on it’s own you pick a totally arbitrary position because even a new born baby would not survive left on it’s own.
Modern technology has allowed us to visually capture the undeniable fact that inside that mother is heart pumping, brain exercising, little bundle of arms and legs that without our interference would grace this world with it’s human presence.
Hey guys,
Yes, I’m back! haha
Just wanna tell you that I’m following the conversation, and that it sounds as boring as the last one.
I’m not gonna do the same mistake as last time though. I’m still not over my laim “douche” insult.
The truth is, I wanted to use some cool Tunisian insults, but they’re so out of your league that I decided to copy the insult of the previous commentator. My bad!
But I know you guys like the word “douche” a lot, so I’ll try not to vex you w/my stuff.
Oh, and about the Israeli-Palestinian debate, this is what came out of it:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~jemmali/ipdialogue.htm
I’m sure you’ll have something funny to say about it. Knock yourselves out!
Peace in the Middle East!
Scott, I see what you mean, sorry if I was a little harsh. Kiss and make up?
🙂
The only thing that bothered me was Jemmali
The only thing that bothered me was Jemmali’s profile of the Christian pro-lifer. In his second paragraph, Jemmali basically accuses pro-lifers of being un-American who are insensitive to the reasons behind a woman’s decision to get an abortion. He goes on to say that Christians who voted for Bush based on religious reasons are the biggest hypocrites in America, which is a pretty heavy accusation.
He talks about how there is a lack of understanding on the part of public pro-lifers, but Jemmali’s argument insinuates that he has made no attempt to understand the religious pro-life camp. Having come from a place where there are many religious Christians who are pro-life, I can say with confidence that their intentions (both in regards to voting for Bush and their stance on the abortion debate) are, by and large, void of any sort of malice. And while I disagree with their views on abortion, these people are not the evil anti-Americans that Jemmali makes them out to be.
He sent me his article this morning in an e-mail, and the first thing I thought of was The Commentator crew.
Sean, I understand what he means by saying that you can be pro-choice as a politician despite private opinions. What I have a problem with is him then turning around and bashing people that are pro-life.
It’s wastes the time that he spent making the first point by him just turning around and saying, “You pro-lifers are idiots, nananana.”
Admittedly, I probably went a little far with my teasing here but I stand by the general concept.
Given his opinions on what constitutes protected speech, it’s a little funny to see Jemmali making appeals to Constitutional arguments.
Agreed on the second point, Vincent. There are some way-out-of-whack assumptions there.
Like Obama and millions of Christians, one can be pro-life at home and pro-choice outside his or her family.
This might be one of the most sensible things I’ve heard Jemmali say, actually.
If you
Also, Jemmali doesn’t just “say” he teaches Arabic — he actually teaches Arabic.
Stop being thick, Scott.
Jemmali’s main point (outside of his love affair with Obama) is that a President can advocate pro-choice policies for the American people while he still holds pro-life values himself. It’s called doing what he determines to be the best for the American people (or not imposing his own values on others) regardless of his own values.