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.
