Letter from the editor: Words really do matter
Gabrielle Abdelmessih is the editor-in-chief of The Oakland Post for the 2022-2023 academic year. She is a senior majoring in biomedical sciences and minoring in journalism.
As a student journalist and as someone aspiring to become a physician, I’ve come to the conclusion that words really do matter.
For example, stop means “don’t go.” Tall means “not short.” Big means “not small.” Losing means “not winning.”
But does “pro-life” really mean pro-life? Or does it mean something else entirely?
If it is possible to remove oneself from this both emotionally and politically charged topic, and empirically look at what “pro-life” advocates are really advocating for, one can only come to the conclusion that “pro-life,” in the way the term is used in the United States today, really just means “pro-birth.”
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are listed in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights.
While I may not be a historical scholar or anything remotely close to it, I suspect that the founding fathers, however flawed they may have personally been, chose these three attributes with intention.
They are intertwined. Life without freedom and the ability to pursue one’s contentedness is slavery. Liberty without the ability to survive interactions with government officials — traffic stops, no-knock warrants, excessive force — and/or the inability to pursue one’s own definition of happiness, isn’t liberty at all. Pursuing happiness without the freedom to do so, or possessing the foundational elements necessary for life (clean water, access to healthcare, food security, housing, etc.) is hollow at best.
It is this same interconnectedness that I believe is lacking in “pro-life” advocacy today. How can one possibly consider themselves “pro-life” without the holistic approach outlined?
In essence, if one is to advocate for birth, one must also advocate for quality life— not life burdened by a lack of healthcare resources (mental health, dental health, physical health, access to affordable, life saving medications, etc.), a cavernous gap in education equity, gender inequality, systemic racism—yes, it is a thing—food insecurity, poor water quality, poor air quality, the list goes on and on….
My point is this: If you are “pro-life,” put up or shut up.
Advocate for affordable healthcare. Advocate for gun safety laws. Advocate for universal access to a quality education in a safe environment. Advocate for racial and gender equity. Advocate for safe housing. Advocate for universal access to fresh, healthy, affordable foods. Advocate for universal internet and technology access. Advocate for public transportation. Advocate for the arts. Advocate for public libraries. Advocate for policies that curb climate change. Advocate for police reform. Advocate for criminal justice reform. Advocate for living wages. Advocate for tax reform that holds large corporations accountable. Advocate for science.
Advocate for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — not just birth.
If you are truly “pro-life,” and you advocate for these things, and see them come to fruition, my suspicion is that you will reduce the number of abortions drastically without taking away personal autonomy.
yousef • Sep 12, 2022 at 12:55 PM
*changing the title to
Editor Z • Jul 21, 2022 at 1:58 PM
This is a great piece, Gabrielle! Thank you, from a fellow Michigan student journalist and Editor-in-Chief, for sticking up for you and your team’s values. That is, of course, what “Letter from the Editor” is all about.
🙂 Keep it up!
yousef • Jul 20, 2022 at 10:58 AM
Gabrielle,
Don’t Censor my comment.
Fact check:
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are listed in the constitution as unalienable rights. ”
This is incorrect, this comes from the declaration of independence not the constitution. The order in which they are listed is meant to be a descending hierarchy of importance. Life>liberty>pursuit of happiness
your accusation against the pro-life advocates seems to be something of the following:
The pro-life side is hypocritical in their position protecting unborn life due to their lack of concern in other social issues.
This position is logically fallacious. The whole purpose of Pro-life advocacy is principally to prevent abortions. To levy an accusation against a groups express purpose simply makes no sense. This is analogous accusing the 4H or FFA clubs for focusing on Farming to much or accusing the Boy Scouts for being so focused on camping and not caring about urban trash collection.
The reason for Pro-Life advocacy stems from a belief that life beginning at conception only tenable position in light of science and human experience. The argument in deductive form: The unjust killing of human life is a moral abomination, fetal life is human life, therefore to end fetal life is morally wrong.
Furthermore your accusation is simply false. Many pro-life advocates give generously to pregnancy resource centers when they aren’t being firebombed by Pro-abortion advocates and many other charities. The centers give diapers, educational resources, prayer, and support to women long after birth. If we look at one of the strongest and largest institutions against abortions the catholic church the church gives generously via Catholic Charities to communities, UM Ann Arbor was co-founded by a Catholic Priest, “St Joseph” hospitals, Gleaners Food bank is a biblical reference to Ruth and Boaz, Whaley Children’s Center (an orphanage) is run by the Episcopalians (also against abortion) …. The list goes on and on.
Pro-life is a fallacy • Jul 20, 2022 at 3:43 PM
You mention that pro-choice activists are firebombing pregnancy resource centers yet neglect to mention the 42 bombings and 186 arsons committed by “pro-life” terrorists. How do you excuse members of the movement being tied to eight cases of murder and refusing abortions even when a pregnancy can not be carried to term, endangering the life of the pregnant person?
yousef • Jul 21, 2022 at 6:37 AM
If you’re referencing this Vox article: https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9827886/abortion-clinic-attacks-mapped
Vox has a heavily left bias and pro-abortion. But lets take what they say at face value. Violence of any kind does nothing to advance either sides cause. The reason for me brining up firebombing of PRCs was gabrielles (is that you?) assumption that pro-lifers do nothing to help babies after birth. the truth is we do but those centers we donate to were being subjected to vandalism and destruction (ironic?).
I will not make excuses for violence of any kind. The pro-life side of the argument I believe with be on the correct side of history in 20 years so it is best not to tarnish the reputation of an otherwise peaceful and effective movement with fits of violence. Your side however agrees and encourages violence. There was an assassin who was planning to take out Kavanaugh who was arrested. The white house press secretary when pressed encouraging protests outside of the homes of these justices (illegal by the way). Protesting someone’s residence only serves one function, to intimidate them and let them know that you know where they and their families live.
I also noticed you did not engage at all with my deductive argument. Would really like to see your opinion on my line of reasoning rather than acting like a child “Pro-life is a fallacy”.
Tanner Trafelet • Jul 20, 2022 at 9:18 AM
Seems like disagreeing with the stated policy prescriptions indirectly related to abortion – and holding differing views on abortion than the author – means one should’t consider engaging in relevant civic discourse. Nothing like the sustainability of telling those who disagree with you to sit down & shut up.
Tanner Trafelet • Jul 20, 2022 at 9:19 AM
*shouldn’t